Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Discussion board help and admin topics => Half Baked Ideas => Topic started by: EHT on January 28, 2018, 09:06:03 PM
-
I want to share with you all something that has me very excited.
After several decades of “overunity” research, replicating and playing with quite a few designs with no real success to show for it, I finally decided that I had to change my thinking. SO I looked at the other part of the Energy Conservation law - the part that says ‘energy cannot be destroyed’.
It seemed at first glance that it would be just as difficult to create a device that destroys energy as it is to create one that generates it however, I believe I have come up with a system that effectively “destroys” energy.
Now, I am well aware that such a system is nowhere near as useful as one that generates energy, but its existence disproves at least half of the conservation law - and if THAT is true, then this casts equal doubt on the other part of the law. In determining what is going on in this system, I have asked a number of self-proclaimed physicists in various forums and can get no satisfactory answer.
I believe this is mainly due to the fact that these guys have absolutely NO interest or even belief in the possibility of free energy and are so keen to poo-poo any inquiries along these lines that the only thing they can do is try to "fit" what I show in my drawings to what they believe they KNOW.
YOU guys, on the other hand, I believe will look at this whole thing with much more interest and willingness to discover what is actually going on.
I can honestly say that what I am about to show you is THE most exciting thing I have ever come across in the whole time I have been playing with this stuff.
I apologise if this all seems really long-winded, but I want to make sure I explain this properly so you cal get into the "spirit" of what I am talking about here.
First, a little background:
I invite you to consider a hypothetical “black box” that accepts an electrical energy input. For the purposes of illustration, lets say it is the size of a shoebox and consumes 500W at 250Vac 50Hz.
Now, regardless of what type of circuitry or mechanism is inside the box, any electrical input to the box must, under the current energy law, be converted into some other form of energy.
If the box were to contain a resistor, then the input energy will be converted to heat. If a transmitter circuit, then the output will be some form of EM. If an LED, then light and heat. If some audio circuit, then sound... and so on.
Classical theory would dictate that it is impossible to put anything in the black box that does NOT transform the input energy into some other type of energy which could be detected and measured. That is to say, the box cannot consume energy without showing some evidence of its consumption. If energy is input, then SOME change in the energy state of the box must occur if the law holds good.
Yet, the device/system I outline below seems to accomplish this.
It can accept energy input (either electrical or mechanical) and “dissipate” it with no evidence of the work being done. It does not emit any kind of measurable energy - neither heat, sound, light, EM of any frequency or any other type of radiation and yet can, depending on its size, be constructed so as to effectively consume any required amount of energy - and give nothing in return.
Now, I know some of you will be thinking that this would have to be the most USELESS device ever conceived - and from a practical standpoint, it IS - but the reason I am excited about it is because somewhere in my mind is this thought that SOMEHOW, the operation of this contraption could be reversed so as to generate energy out of "nothing" in the opposite way that it can make energy disappear INTO nothing.
I am sure many of you have had the experience of holding of a spinning bicycle wheel by the axle in both hands and feeling the effect of its gyroscopic force when it is spinning. When you try to twist the axis around, the flywheel reacts by pushing at right angles to the force applied. BUT, if while you are trying to twist it around, constrain it to stay vertical, you can easily feel that the spinning resists your efforts and it FEELS like you need quite a bit of force to change the axis of orientation.
Now please see the attached picture (fw.jpg).
A flywheel is mounted so it can spin freely. Lets just say for the moment it is a massive flywheel, spun up to high RPM and with quality bearings that allow it to spin for quite a long time.
Now, the whole thing - the wheel and its mounting - is further mounted on a horizontal turntable. This allows the axis of the wheel to be rotated anywhere in the XY plane (that is, ABOUT the Z-axis).
We set the wheels axis so that it is pointing North-South and we spin it up.
On the turntable is a handle so we can manually rotate it. If we try to do so, we find that it takes a lot of force to change the orientation of the wheel, especially if it is spinning fast. But with enough force, we CAN, after a time, change the axis so that the axis of the wheel is now aligned East-West. That is after 90 degrees of rotation.
If we go another 90 degrees, the axis is now South-North. That is, we have effectively REVERSED the direction in which the wheel is spinning or, to put it another way, we have reversed the direction component of the wheels angular momentum.
Lets go another 180 degrees. Now, the wheel is now spinning in exactly the same direction as it was when we started.
We have applied force over that full 360 degrees and as we all know, force multiplied by distance = energy. BUT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE SYSTEM. The rpm of the wheel does not change as a result of the twisting, nor is there ANY other evidence of that energy having been input to the system (!)
It doesn't take much to imagine that if we now use a motor to effect the rotation of the turntable, that motor can consume power doing the work to rotate the turntable - and the whole kaboodle will sit there, rotating away, consuming energy - AND NOT GETTING HOT OR IN ANY OTHER WAY SHOWING EVIDENCE OF THAT ENERGY HAVING BEEN EXPENDED.
I have been through this in my mind countless times and I just CANNOT come up with an explanation of WHERE the energy is going (!) This system seems to just gobble up energy and give back ZIP.
The next thing I am going to do is to knock up a prototype so I can demonstrate the thing for real. Luckily, my dear old Dad has a lovely workshop with a lathe and all the gear I could possibly need.
I have played with flywheels enough to KNOW that it will do in practice exactly what I have outlined - and I am sure that if YOU think about it, you will also agree that it must.
So if energy can be "destroyed" ie made to disappear without leaving a trace, then we can say for sure that we have a violation of the energy conservation law - at least one half of it. And if THAT is the case, then the other part of that law about "creating" energy is liable to be also just as breakable.
Right now, I cannot think of a way to reverse the operation of this thing to GENERATE energy, but I believe in my heart that proving energy can be destroyed IS getting us one step closer to our "Holy Grail".
And I gotta tell you all, I can't think of anything more exciting than to have a contraption on my bench that sits there and actually generates energy. I can only imagine you guys share this sentiment.
I look forward to your thoughts!
ps. I am just now in the process of making a 3D model video of this so it can be seen more clearly exactly what I am describing. I will post it as soon as I have finished it.
-
If I sit here and push on an immovable wall with all of my force
or place a linear motor against an immovable wall and let it run
is not energy being ‘consumed’?
let’s look at a pendulum, each swing of a pendulum, gravity is placing a force
onto the shaft.
This force is moving.
Force over distance
Is energy consumed in the shaft of a pendulum?
Does the shaft heat up while it’s swinging?
What type of “evidence” are we looking for of the energy consumption?
Science does not define energy.
Science only defines the use of energy, or the forms it may take on.
But does “energy” even exist?
or are we just manifesting aspects of the universe, by our actions?
What is it, exactly, that we are trying to create or destroy?
and if it cannot be created or destroyed, then it is ever present.
if it is ever present, it’s infinite existence is manifest everywhere.
all we need to do is convert it from universe.
The same way we convert it back to universe.
Or we could look at energy as a function of force.
Wherever there is force, there is a potential for energy to occur.
in the same way that wherever there is force, there is a potential for
energy to stop occurring.
does force create or destroy energy?
Or does force manifest energy from universe?
or send it back from whence it came?
when we have multiple forces, do they create or destroy energy between them?
Or do they manifest energy from universe where there was first only force?
Force does not become energy until we allow it to move
Motion does not become energy until we allow it to exert force.
What is energy?
Energy is nothing, and everything is energy.
If everything is nothing, do we even need to create or destroy it?
Energy comes from nothing, and it comes from everything.
It goes back to nothing, and back to everything.
What is the energy constant derived from the combination of thermodynamic theory
and quantum mechanics?
How does this apply to universe?
How does this apply to our definition of energy?
how do I make my head stop spinning??
-
"If I sit here and push on an immovable wall with all of my force or place a linear motor against an immovable wall and let it run is not energy being ‘consumed’?"
Yes, it is, but in these cases, it will be simply transformed into HEAT.
"let’s look at a pendulum, each swing of a pendulum, gravity is placing a force onto the shaft. This force is moving. Force over distance. Is energy consumed in the shaft of a pendulum?
Does the shaft heat up while it’s swinging?"
The energy put into the initial swing is eventually used up in countering air resistance - actually heating the air it moves through by a miniscule amount.
"What type of “evidence” are we looking for of the energy consumption?"
SOME kind of OUTPUT, whether it be EM, sound, light, radiation, change of location, change of velocity, change in temperature... change in SOMETHING
"What is it, exactly, that we are trying to create or destroy? and if it cannot be created or destroyed, then it is ever present. if it is ever present, it’s infinite existence is manifest everywhere.
all we need to do is convert it from universe.
"
Yes, energy is present everywhere, all around us. But in the vast majority of cases, it takes more energy to extract that energy than what we get back. Conquering that is wha the whole overunity thing is all about.
"What is energy?
I believe that energy represents the capacity to induce CHANGE. Whether that change be in temperature, electric field, magnetic field, charge, voltage, location, velocity, brightness etc etc
Proof of this is in the facts that:
Where there is energy, there is change
Where there is change, there is energy.
Where there is no energy, there is no change.
Where there is no change, there is no energy.
In the vast majority of devices considered here on this forum, we are trying to use a bit of energy to extract MORE energy. Since no-one has come forward to claim the Overunity Prize, I feel it safe to say that no-one has come up with a replicable working device yet. Since I can't seem to do that either, I am just simply concentrating on doing the exact opposite for now ;-)
-
With the pendulum, I was not talking about the gravitational potential energy of the bob.
The equations handle this very well.
But the stress-force on the shaft is identified, then ignored.
This force is moving, therefore the energy cannot be 0.
Something of this here
https://cse.wwu.edu/files/Centripetal%20Force%20of%20a%20Pendulum%20Demonstration.pdf (https://cse.wwu.edu/files/Centripetal%20Force%20of%20a%20Pendulum%20Demonstration.pdf)
But all the “energy” is accounted for in the gravitational potential equations of the bob.
The changing force within the shaft, moving over a distance, represents an additional quotient.
The magnitude changes with the angle, but at no point is the force negative.
The shaft Must be heating up, to some degree, in accordance to the equations.
As the result of change in stress along the length of the material.
Stress/strain analysis identifies the exact quantity.
There’s a reason we do not include this in the pendulum equations.
If I use a material with high stress/strain coefficients, that causes more heating in the shaft,
how does this affect the oscillations?
again, I ask. Does the pendulum create energy?
Or convert it from universe?
When I push on a wall, my body heats up exactly the same as if I lift something
with the same force.
This includes the heat generated at the palm-to-object interface.
the heat generated on the wall side of the interface, combined with increase in body heat,
does not account for the energy that I expend. Now of course, there is EM in our muscles,
EM in our brains, and intercellular activities that consume exponentially more energy
than just the pushing, and there is an associated consumption of calories.
However
Even the thoughts we perform discussing this, consume more energy than accounted for
by our caloric intake.
Do our brains create energy?
Potential for change, that is a good perspective to hold.
Everything is always in a state of change.
Therefore, everything has this potential.
Even where there is “nothing”, things change. Energy and particles appear from “nothing”.
This creates a potential for change with respect to anything (or the nothing) nearby.
Does the universe create energy?
The most commonly accepted theory states that energy created the universe.
Black hole theory states that the process is reversible.
-
Object K Mass Diameter Velocity Energy, J
A) bicycle wheel @ 20 km/h 1 1 kg 700 mm 150 rpm 15 J
B) bicycle wheel, double speed (40 km/h) 1 1 kg 700 mm 300 rpm 60 J
C) bicycle wheel, double mass (20 km/h) 1 2 kg 700 mm 150 rpm 30 J
Compare A) and B), then you will notice doubling the speed will quadruple the energy stored in joules. Compare A) and C), then you will notice doubling the mass only doubles the energy stored in joules.
If we transferred 30 J in C), to a bicycle wheel @ 20 km/h with half the mass, so the bicycle wheel is similar to A), then the bicycle wheel should have 30 J), because we can't destroy energy. This will give us D).
D) bicycle wheel @ 20 km/h 1 1 kg 700 mm 150 rpm 30 J
Now compare A) and D). is this correct? D) has twice the Joules as A), so D) should have twice the RPM), but according to the mathematics, A) and D) should match. If we make them match, then we will destroy half of our energy stored. How can this be possible if we can't destroy energy? So, we'll double the RPM and the correct answer should be E).
E) bicycle wheel @ 20 km/h 1 1 kg 700 mm 300 rpm 30 J
E) and B) should match, but B) has twice as much Joules as E) and the wheel we transferred the energy to, should also have 60 J if it is running at 300 RPM. How can this be possible, since we can't create energy.
This is what the above suggests. If we can't destroy energy, then energy must be created. If we can't create energy, then energy must be destroyed. The correct answer in our example is F). We created energy in our example. If we transferred F to a bicycle wheel @ 20 km/h with double the mass, then we will destroy energy and will have G), which is what we originally started with in our example.
F) bicycle wheel @ 20 km/h 1 1 kg 700 mm 300 rpm 60 J
G) bicycle wheel, double mass @ 20 km/h 1 2 kg 700 mm 150 rpm 30 J
So, we transferred the energy stored from a larger mass into a smaller mass and created energy. Then we transferred the energy from the smaller mass with the additional energy that was created from the previous transfer to a larger mass and destroy the energy we previously created.
The end result is energy can either be created or destroyed in an open system, but in a closed system, then energy is both created and destroyed and it appears to have only changed from one form of energy into another form of energy. In other-words, the so-called law that states "energy can't be created nor destroyed" is flawed, inaccurate, incomplete and just wrong.
Gravock
-
......
E) and B) should match, but B) has twice as much Joules as E) and the wheel we transferred the energy to, should also have 60 J if it is running at 300 RPM. How can this be possible, since we can't create energy.
How? By the Intelligent Design used by The Creator of nature; God: that so many reject, that's one simple explanation of how IT IS POSSIBLE.
How? By the naturally occurring Kinetic energy of Matter in motion that NO MAN or beast can prevent or inhibit when he does any WORK within the nature of Intelligent Design.
Either of which means we don't NEED to have an ability to "Create" but we do NEED to have the WILL to, and do the WORK required by DESIGN to intelligently design "our" filthy rags to get access to it. It is like everything here; PROVIDED for the NEEDS of all those who will do the WORK.
E=mc^2 VIA 1/2mv^2
Brings to mind: "Go Greyhound and leave the driving to us." - Creating energy is best left to the Creator, he's quite good at it and not in it for the $. (Humorously after all, unlike us he's not in "Dire straights: "money for nothing and chicks for free") https://youtu.be/lAD6Obi7Cag?t=56
This is what the above suggests. If we can't destroy energy, then energy must be created. If we can't create energy, then energy must be destroyed. The correct answer in our example is F). We created energy in our example. If we transferred F to a bicycle wheel @ 20 km/h with double the mass, then we will destroy energy and will have G), which is what we originally started with in our example.
F) bicycle wheel @ 20 km/h 1 1 kg 700 mm 300 rpm 60 J
G) bicycle wheel, double mass @ 20 km/h 1 2 kg 700 mm 150 rpm 30 J
So, we transferred the energy stored from a larger mass into a smaller mass and created energy. Then we transferred the energy from the smaller mass with the additional energy that was created from the previous transfer to a larger mass and destroy the energy we previously created.
The end result is energy can either be created or destroyed in an open system, but in a closed system, then energy is both created and destroyed and it appears to have only changed from one form of energy into another form of energy. In other-words, the so-called law that states "energy can't be created nor destroyed" is flawed, inaccurate, incomplete and just wrong.
Gravock
There is a great example of "uncommon sense".
"The Law" is just the opinion of men that have not done THE REQUIRED WORK.
It can be fun, when we try. But who is going to do the WORK for those who won't?
-
Evidently there are plenty of people with little sense but lots of money.
-
123.456789 x .1225 = 15.123456789 (15 J)
493.82716 x .1225 = 60.493827 (60 J)
Yeah..... checks out
-
How? By the Intelligent Design used by The Creator of nature; God: that so many reject, that's one simple explanation of how IT IS POSSIBLE.
How? By the naturally occurring Kinetic energy of Matter in motion that NO MAN or beast can prevent or inhibit when he does any WORK within the nature of Intelligent Design.
Either of which means we don't NEED to have an ability to "Create" but we do NEED to have the WILL to, and do the WORK required by DESIGN to intelligently design "our" filthy rags to get access to it. It is like everything here; PROVIDED for the NEEDS of all those who will do the WORK.
E=mc^2 VIA 1/2mv^2
Brings to mind: "Go Greyhound and leave the driving to us." - Creating energy is best left to the Creator, he's quite good at it and not in it for the $. (Humorously after all, unlike us he's not in "Dire straights: "money for nothing and chicks for free") https://youtu.be/lAD6Obi7Cag?t=56 (https://youtu.be/lAD6Obi7Cag?t=56)
There is a great example of "uncommon sense".
"The Law" is just the opinion of men that have not done THE REQUIRED WORK.
It can be fun, when we try. But who is going to do the WORK for those who won't?
Good post, and I totally agree with you. Scientism, "a science falsely so called", has unwisely taken The Creator of nature (God) out of the equation.
Gravock
-
So we build a “god trap” to capture nature’s infinite energy machine
-
Well, if we bring God in.. we might as well bring the ancient Sumerians in.
If you are open for this.. You can learn a lot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh8VJ-5a3uI&list=PLf2_N_uEdfWbd9wXHp5nOmWskwKPwiSFn
-
I'm a long time lurker, and respect the opinion of a lot of the posters here.
I can't resist the urge to ask about wind turbines. There are more and more being erected where I live.
If Newton's 2nd law is correct, will the wind not blow somewhere else, if turbines are creating power or electricity?
Can wind turbines cause change in the weather?
Thanks in advance
SB
-
I'm a long time lurker, and respect the opinion of a lot of the posters here.
I can't resist the urge to ask about wind turbines. There are more and more being erected where I live.
If Newton's 2nd law is correct, will the wind not blow somewhere else, if turbines are creating power or electricity?
Can wind turbines cause change in the weather?
Thanks in advance
SB
In short: Yes it does.
A little longer: It's all about scale.
A wind turbine changes the (micro) climate around that object.
But if you take the the butterfly theorie ( a butterfly flapping it's wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane in the Caribbean, for example ) then every object moving or non-moving influences the micro and macro climate in a way. But how much? And to what effect? A large tree does the same.. but now it's called nature.. Cut down that tree and you create a different micro climate on that spot.. and somewhere on the world.
So yes it does, it is up to you to decide if that influence makes a difference...
( Little note, i'm against large commercial wind turbine parks, it's just a consolidation of the same power distribution (pay) system. I believe in every home should have it's own power generation)
-
Thanks for the quick reply Cherryman.
Nice analogy with the micro climate and the tree, but does the tree transfer wind power elsewhere or just re-direct the wind?
We have over 500 turbines generating 2 to 5 MW each, within a 400 square mile grid.
There is a a lot of power being created from the wind. I wonder what the trade off is.
Thanks again.
-
Evidently there are plenty of people with little sense but lots of money.
Oh my aren't you the clever one with words written in true ignorance. https://youtu.be/qeMFqkcPYcg?t=7
Not everyone is looking for the same thing in their time here.
Any true science/research/learning takes money, time, effort.
A truly scientific mind seeks to observe/learn that which they honestly admit they do not have knowledge of.
Independent research yields individual observations and individual results.
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Respond to this observation: Without Matter in motion there can be no life.
Now please tell everyone what FORCE and SOURCE OF POWER is keeping you among the living on this side of the grass, and don't be rash.
-
Remember Black Sunday........
When a simple spring breeze transplanted
300 million tons of topsoil halfway across the U.S.
when we restrict airflow in a small place,
we are effectively building up pressure behind it.
When great enough, we create a pressure differential
which further drives the wind.
This is because the Entire volume of our atmosphere
is the driving force of the wind, NOT the wind speed that
we use to calculate “wind energy”.
The wind energy of the planet is derived from the net sum
of pressure differential around the globe.
This number is several magnitudes greater than the energy locally.
Like trying to stop a bus with a toothpick.
If we take too much local wind energy, the wind will simply pluck
our windmill farm (concrete and all) and drop it off somewhere else
on the earth. There is a theoretical point between two extremes
at which we will create enough local pressure imbalance to meet
our energy demands. This is the top-end production goal.
In this state, our atmosphere becomes a solar-powered heat engine
that produces H^36, where H is the quantity of global electrical
consumption in 1972. (the date when scientists did this math)
Which, for those who are curious:
H= 8426 Trillion KWh (1972)
H= 22,223 Trillion KWh (2014)
We will never run out of wind power or exceed
our potential to harvest it.
There are subsequently an infinite number of possibilities in
terms of the differentiated pressure effects of manipulation of
our atmosphere. That being said, we tiny humans are not likely
to exceed the effects caused by nature.
(black Sunday was a natural event, but the conditions that allowed
it to occur had human origins)
Of course none of this matters anymore.
I just received verbal confirmation by a scientist working under
contract with an Argonne group:
They have violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics both mathematically
and experimentally. (Although there is still conjecture on the experimental
process) So, soon the mass of this religious organization will have to
revamp their religious laws, or face the shelves of mythology.
In either case, each individual that subscribed to the previously held dogma
of their religion will face the self-realization of their own actions.
And the detrimental effects they have had as individuals, on our research.
In my personal view I see them as no different from ‘flat earthers’
But you can’t blame them, they were indoctrinated by our educational
system, and the scientific hierarchy that controls knowledge.
On top of that, the theory of thermodynamics holds true in most of the ways
in which we use it. (this is clearly based on the theoretical constraints placed on
the theory) but that is neither here nor there.
-
Object K Mass Diameter Velocity Energy, J
A) bicycle wheel @ 20 km/h 1 1 kg 700 mm 150 rpm 15 J
B) bicycle wheel, double speed (40 km/h) 1 1 kg 700 mm 300 rpm 60 J
C) bicycle wheel, double mass (20 km/h) 1 2 kg 700 mm 150 rpm 30 J
Compare A) and B), then you will notice doubling the speed will quadruple the energy stored in joules. Compare A) and C), then you will notice doubling the mass only doubles the energy stored in joules.
If we transferred 30 J in C), to a bicycle wheel @ 20 km/h with half the mass, so the bicycle wheel is similar to A), then the bicycle wheel should have 30 J), because we can't destroy energy. This will give us D).
D) bicycle wheel @ 20 km/h 1 1 kg 700 mm 150 rpm 30 J
Gravock
Gravoc, please check your figures;
A 2kg, 700mm bicycle wheel at 20 km/h (150rpm) has 30 Joules.
If we transfer that 30 J to a wheel with half the mass, we get 212 RPM
(1.4142 x 150rpm = 212 RPM).
In the same way that doubling the speed will quadruple the energy and doubling the mass only doubles the energy, halving the speed will quarter the energy whilst halving the mass will only halve the energy.
-
Thank you EHT
I only checked A & B
Then got lazy, so I didn’t check c,d,e,f...
I assumed that he had his equations correct
:(
The rounding threw me off at first glance, that’s why
I had to check it.
-
No worries, Smoky. It's happened to me before... and more than just a few times ::)
For an all-too-brief moment there, it all seemed legit.... until suddenly - when everyone was least expecting it - nothing happened.
I hate that when that happens.
-
Gravoc, please check your figures;
A 2kg, 700mm bicycle wheel at 20 km/h (150rpm) has 30 Joules.
If we transfer that 30 J to a wheel with half the mass, we get 212 RPM
(1.4142 x 150rpm = 212 RPM).
In the same way that doubling the speed will quadruple the energy and doubling the mass only doubles the energy, halving the speed will quarter the energy whilst halving the mass will only halve the energy.
A bicycle wheel is more like a ring than a solid disk, so it is you who needs to check your figures and not me. Look at the RPM and kinetic energy in Joules for a ring (bicycle wheel) in the snapshot below. Here's the link to the flywheel calculator for both a disk and ring (http://www.calculatoredge.com/mech/flywheel.htm).
Gravock
-
Thank you EHT
I only checked A & B
Then got lazy, so I didn’t check c,d,e,f...
I assumed that he had his equations correct
:(
The rounding threw me off at first glance, that’s why
I had to check it.
You should be ashamed of yourself Smoky! I wouldn't call it being lazy... I would call it being willfully ignorant of the truth!
Gravock
-
No worries, Smoky. It's happened to me before... and more than just a few times ::)
For an all-too-brief moment there, it all seemed legit.... until suddenly - when everyone was least expecting it - nothing happened.
I hate that when that happens.
...and it happened to you once again.
Gravock
-
@ Temporal Visitor,
Smoky and EHT are both willfully ignorant of the fact that flywheels are actually levers! And they think they are educated? It's more like they have been indoctrinated by this foolish system of things!
Gravock
-
@ Temporal Visitor,
Smoky and EHT are both willfully ignorant of the fact that flywheels are actually levers! And they think they are educated? It's more like they have been indoctrinated by this foolish system of things!
Gravock
If WE are indoctrinated in this "foolish system of things", then why are YOU the one trying to convince us using that same system ?
Lesson 1 of being a man, Gravok: learn to admit when you are wrong.
It saves you looking like a total noob when you try to worm your way out by slinging insults. Children do that.
-
@ Temporal Visitor,
Smoky and EHT are both willfully ignorant of the fact that flywheels are actually levers! And they think they are educated? It's more like they have been indoctrinated by this foolish system of things!
Gravock
Hi Gravock,
No doubt there are many "willfully ignorant" people that "think" they have ALL the right answers because of their "education" in the foolish system of things we all exist in. - But I'm not yet even close to certain that is the case here.
Yes wheels are in fact levers (and a whole lot more) and in your word example 700mm to 700mm diameter is a 1:1 MA (mechanical advantage) which means that when both are already at 20km/h or 150 rpm input results in 150 rpm output, and that's a fact.
That is if correctly understanding what is written, but there is plenty of potential for misunderstanding word experiments and that makes it too easy to make mistakes; which in part is why I posted the photos of an older (2013-14) somewhat similar system in operation/testing.
"A picture is worth a thousand words.". I like to save TIME where I can, as I have "sense" enough to understand it/mine is running thin. The photos are evidence of at least having done THE REQUIRED WORK to learn first hand personal knowledge.
BTW @TK - Yes I spend the money (lots) to do the applied science (lots) to learn some Truth on my own. It made/makes sense to me since we don't get to take "money" with upon being cleared for takeoff/departure from "here". Can we agree on that?
-
A bicycle wheel is more like a ring than a solid disk, so it is you who needs to check your figures and not me. Look at the RPM and kinetic energy in Joules for a ring (bicycle wheel) in the snapshot below. Here's the link to the flywheel calculator for both a disk and ring (http://www.calculatoredge.com/mech/flywheel.htm).
Gravock
1. I knew from the start we were talking about the ring constant.
2. I used a flywheel calculator to ascertain your error in the beginning - or didn't you see that ?
All you proved so far is that both calculator sites agree.
-
If WE are indoctrinated in this "foolish system of things", then why are YOU the one trying to convince us using that same system ?
Lesson 1 of being a man, Gravok: learn to admit when you are wrong.
It saves you looking like a total noob when you try to worm your way out by slinging insults. Children do that.
"If WE are indoctrinated in this "foolish system of things", then why are YOU the one trying to convince us using that same system ?" There is a huge difference between science and scientism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeIGrEtPMmE)! You should learn the differences before you speak of things in which you do not know!
"Lesson 1 of being a man, Gravok: learn to admit when you are wrong." Your statement is nothing more than a Psychological Projection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection) (see first snapshot below)! A Psychological Projection is when a person projects their own faults and/or shortcomings onto another person. It is you who is wrong and not me!
"It saves you looking like a total noob when you try to worm your way out by slinging insults. Children do that." It is you who, with less than 10 posts (see second snapshot below), who is a total newbie and not me, who has over 3200 posts! This is another Psychological Projection by you! Also, it is you who is trying to worm your way out, and not me! Three Psychological Projections, and a possible 4th projection in regards to children, by you in a single post.
Gravock
-
1. I knew from the start we were talking about the ring constant.
2. I used a flywheel calculator to ascertain your error in the beginning - or didn't you see that ?
All you proved so far is that both calculator sites agree.
Let me simplify this for you and the others, since my word experiment is somewhat confusing.
A good example in how COM (Conservation Of Mass) holds while COE (Conservation of Energy) is violated can be seen in transferring the momentum of a heavier mass to a lighter mass, according to KE = 0.5 * mv2. It's known by top physicists that Newton's zeroth law is invalid.
A 5 kg mass moving 1 m/s has 5 units of momentum and has a kinetic energy of 2.5J. A 1 kg mass moving 5 m/s has 5 units of momentum and has a kinetic energy of 12.5J
12.5J > 2.5J !!! <------ Conservation of energy is violated when transferring the momentum of a heavier mass to a lighter mass, while the 5 units of momentum is conserved!
Gravock
-
Thanks Gravlok
the above is good
Love it
-
A) 123.456789 x .1225 = 15.123456789 (15 J)
B) 493.82716 x .1225 = 60.493827 (60 J)
Yeah..... checks out
C) 123.456789 x .245 = 30.2469133 (30J) check
D) 30 / .1225 = 244.897959
(sqrt)244.897959 = 22.1313 rad/s -> 211.3383 RPM
FAIL
Shame on me for being so lazy and neglecting to check
Someone Elses’s Math
My apologies to all
I will try to be more diligent in the future.
-
Let me simplify this for you and the others, since my word experiment is somewhat confusing.
A good example in how COM (Conservation Of Mass) holds while COE (Conservation of Energy) is violated can be seen in transferring the momentum of a heavier mass to a lighter mass, according to KE = 0.5 * mv2. It's known by top physicists that Newton's zeroth law is invalid.
A 5 kg mass moving 1 m/s has 5 units of momentum and has a kinetic energy of 2.5J. A 1 kg mass moving 5 m/s has 5 units of momentum and has a kinetic energy of 12.5J
12.5J > 2.5J !!! <------ Conservation of energy is violated when transferring the momentum of a heavier mass to a lighter mass, while the 5 units of momentum is conserved!
Gravock
The confusion here is that momentum is not a conserved quantity in this example. Momentum is mass x velocity and NOT the same as energy. You cannot transfer momentum and expect the same energy because they have different equations.
IF a 100% transfer of energy between the masses were to be effected, then it would result in the 1kg mass having a velocity of sqrt(5) m/sec - approx 2.236 m/sec
Mass 1kg. Energy=2.5J
V=sqrt(2E/m)
=sqrt(2 x 2.5/1)
=sqrt(5)
=2.236 m/sec
E=(mv*2)/2
= 1 x sqrt(5)^2/2
=5/2
=2.5J
Ask any "top physicist" (or just a "normal" physicist, for that matter) and they will tell you the same.
-
The confusion here is that momentum is not a conserved quantity in this example. Momentum is mass x velocity and NOT the same as energy. You cannot transfer momentum and expect the same energy because they have different equations.
IF a 100% transfer of energy between the masses were to be effected, then it would result in the 1kg mass having a velocity of sqrt(5) m/sec - approx 2.236 m/sec
Mass 1kg. Energy=2.5J
V=sqrt(2E/m)
=sqrt(2 x 2.5/1)
=sqrt(5)
=2.236 m/sec
E=(mv*2)/2
= 1 x sqrt(5)^2/2
=5/2
=2.5J
Ask any "top physicist" (or just a "normal" physicist, for that matter) and they will tell you the same.
Where did I transfer momentum and received the same energy in my example as you have falsely asserted? Where did I use the same equation for both the momentum and energy in my example as you have falsely asserted? I used mass x velocity for momentum and 0.5 * mv2 for the kinetic energy!
5 kg mass moving 1 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity). <------- KE = 2.5J (KE = 0.5 * mv2)
1 kg mass moving 5 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity) <-.------ KE = 12.5J (KE = 0.5 * mv2)
As you can clearly see, momentum is a conserved quantity in my example, which you falsely asserted was not a conserved quantity in my example! Also, energy is not a conserved quantity in my example, which you falsely asserted that it is a conserved quantity in my example.
2.5J is not the same energy as 12.5J! I never transferred momentum and expected the same energy in my example because I used different equations for the momentum and energy.
You're clearly trying to mislead the reader!
Gravock
-
Where did I transfer momentum and received the same energy in my example as you have falsely asserted? Where did I use the same equations for both the momentum and energy in my example as you have falsely asserted? I used mass x velocity for momentum and 0.5 * mv2 for the kinetic energy!
5 kg mass moving 1 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity). <------- KE = 2.5J (KE = 0.5 * mv2)
1 kg mass moving 5 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity) <-.------ KE = 12.5J (KE = 0.5 * mv2)
As you can see, momentum is a conserved quantity in my example, which you falsely asserted was not a conserved quantity in my example!
2.5J is not the same energy as 12.5J! I never transferred momentum and expected the same energy in my example because I used different equations for the momentum and energy.
You're clearly trying to mislead the reader!
Gravock
Four false assertions by EHT in a single post! This is an interesting pattern developing from EHT...ROFLMAO!!!!
Gravock
-
Four false assertions by EHT in a single post! This is an interesting pattern developing from EHT...ROFLMAO!!!!
Gravock
....and EHT falls flat on his face like the Double Domino Effect (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BTWiZ7CYoI) (wait for it)! Additional angle of the Reverse Domino Effect (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plw718jHth8).
Gravock
-
You're clearly trying to mislead the reader!
Gravock
I'd bet that the readers here are not as easily misled as you seem to think.
-
I'd bet that the readers here are not as easily misled as you seem to think.
So, you have no scientific or mathematical rebuttal of my reply to support the four false assertions you made in your post? If not, then this is evidence of you intentionally misleading the reader with false assertions and is proof of you being wrong!
Gravock
-
Have you built the testbed?
So to make sure I am understanding you correctly your assumption is that the input force for the second axis of rotation will be high, relatively speaking, due to the rotation of the flywheel AND that when you stop the input for the second axis of rotation the system will stop rotating in that second axis, correct?
My assumption would be that it would take as much input to stop the second axis of rotation as what was put in to create it.
Thank you for your interest, Webby.
I am in the process of building it. Rather than trying to use a manually spun-up flywheel, I intent to add a small motor and battery to maintain the flywheel at constant RPM. That way, I can run the unit continuously for a long period knowing that the flywheel inertia is constant.
Yes you understand correctly.
I know from previous experiments that rotation in the second axis ceases instantly upon removal of the actuating force. This is what got me interested in the idea in the first place;
The flywheels inertia acts like a brake on the second axis - a perfectly resistive load - but one that does NOT dissipate heat in the process of its braking.
This is the curious bit - there does not appear to be ANY reaction or transformation that could account for the expenditure of the energy.
I believe that complete proof would best be made by having a large motor doing the work of rotating the second axis and showing the power used to do so.
If, say, 500W were being used by the motor, and the motor was 90% efficient, then the only "output" from the device will be the 50W worth of heat resulting from the motors losses.
Of course, it would be better if we could make 450W APPEAR rather than disappear, but either event suffices to show contravention of the conservation law.
-
I'd bet that the readers here are not as easily misled as you seem to think.
I couldn't have said it any better myself! However, as can be seen from the comment to my post below by gsmsslsb, along with silence from the other readers, and your lack of scientific or mathematical rebuttal to my post, it's not in your favor!
Where did I transfer momentum and received the same energy in my example as you have falsely asserted? Where did I use the same equation for both the momentum and energy in my example as you have falsely asserted? I used mass x velocity for momentum and 0.5 * mv2 for the kinetic energy!
5 kg mass moving 1 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity). <------- KE = 2.5J (KE = 0.5 * mv2)
1 kg mass moving 5 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity) <-.------ KE = 12.5J (KE = 0.5 * mv2)
As you can clearly see, momentum is a conserved quantity in my example, which you falsely asserted was not a conserved quantity in my example! Also, energy is not a conserved quantity in my example, which you falsely asserted that it is a conserved quantity in my example.
2.5J is not the same energy as 12.5J! I never transferred momentum and expected the same energy in my example because I used different equations for the momentum and energy.
You're clearly trying to mislead the reader!
Gravock
Thanks Gravlok
the above is good
Love it
-
So if energy can be "destroyed" ie made to disappear without leaving a trace, then we can say for sure that we have a violation of the energy conservation law - at least one half of it. And if THAT is the case, then the other part of that law about "creating" energy is liable to be also just as breakable.
I have already shown mathematically how the "other part of that law about creating energy" in which you speak of isn't valid, and you throw one false assertion after another at it without any scientific or mathematical rebuttals! If the COE (Conservation Of Energy) doesn't hold for creating energy as I have shown mathematically, then this gives support to your claims that the COE doesn't hold for destroying energy. In addition to this, I have mathematically shown how transferring momentum from a lighter mass to a heavier mass will destroy energy. The funny thing is, you are rejecting the very thing that gives support to your own claims! ROFLMAO!!!
Gravock
-
D) 30 / .1225 = 244.897959
(sqrt)244.897959 = 22.1313 rad/s -> 211.3383 RPM
FAIL
-
Where did I transfer momentum and received the same energy in my example as you have falsely asserted? Where did I use the same equation for both the momentum and energy in my example as you have falsely asserted? I used mass x velocity for momentum and 0.5 * mv2 for the kinetic energy!
5 kg mass moving 1 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity). <------- KE = 2.5J (KE = 0.5 * mv2)
1 kg mass moving 5 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity) <-.------ KE = 12.5J (KE = 0.5 * mv2)
As you can clearly see, momentum is a conserved quantity in my example, which you falsely asserted was not a conserved quantity in my example! Also, energy is not a conserved quantity in my example, which you falsely asserted that it is a conserved quantity in my example.
2.5J is not the same energy as 12.5J! I never transferred momentum and expected the same energy in my example because I used different equations for the momentum and energy.
You're clearly trying to mislead the reader!
Gravock
@Smoky,
I simplified what I was trying to originally convey and now it is Successful!!!
Gravock
-
Where did I transfer momentum and received the same energy in my example as you have falsely asserted?
I never asserted that. I simply showed how transferring momentum does NOT violate the energy conservation law.
Where did I use the same equation for both the momentum and energy in my example as you have falsely asserted?
I never asserted that either. What I said was that Momentum is mass x velocity and NOT the same as energy.
I used mass x velocity for momentum and 0.5 * mv2 for the kinetic energy!
Good work. Equations rock, don't they!
I never transferred momentum and expected the same energy in my example because I used different equations for the momentum and energy.
Using different equations for momentum and energy - wow! What a breakthrough.
Gravock
After your first unsuccessful attempt at showing the world how easily you can break the laws of physics, you shifted the focus to an example involving transfer of momentum instead of energy KNOWING that doing so would make it APPEAR that energy has not been conserved when in fact a true transfer of motion in this example MUST constitute an exchange of energy, not momentum.
Case closed.
-
I have already shown mathematically how the "other part of that law about creating energy" in which you speak of isn't valid, and you throw one false assertion after another at it without any scientific or mathematical rebuttals! If the COE (Conservation Of Energy) doesn't hold for creating energy as I have shown mathematically, then this gives support to your claims that the COE doesn't hold for destroying energy. In addition to this, I have mathematically shown how transferring momentum from a lighter mass to a heavier mass will destroy energy. The funny thing is, you are rejecting the very thing that gives support to your own claims! ROFLMAO!!!
Gravock
Firstly, I have made no claims. Secondly, even if I did decide to do so, I would not need any of your "support", thank you.
Lastly, all the relevant math was in my rebuttal. If you want to argue, show me where it is wrong.
-
The confusion here is that momentum is not a conserved quantity in this example. <-----This is the false assertion you originally made
Please show how the momentum isn't a conserved quantity in this example:
A) 5 kg mass moving 1 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity).
B) 1 kg mass moving 5 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity).
Both A and B have 5 units of momentum, so you did make a false assertion that momentum isn't a conserved quantity in this example!
Gravock
-
After your first unsuccessful attempt at showing the world how easily you can break the laws of physics, you shifted the focus to an example involving transfer of momentum instead of energy KNOWING that doing so would make it APPEAR that energy has not been conserved when in fact a true transfer of motion in this example MUST constitute an exchange of energy, not momentum.
Case closed.
The kinetic energy of an object is related to its momentum by the equation: Ek = P2 / 2m : Where P is momentum and m is the mass of the body
5 kg mass moving 1 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity). <------- KE = 2.5J ( Ek = P2 / 2m)
1 kg mass moving 5 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity) <-.------ KE = 12.5J ( Ek = P2 / 2m)
A transfer of momentum is an exchange of energy!
Case Closed!
Gravock
-
The confusion here is that momentum is not a conserved quantity in this example. Momentum is mass x velocity and NOT the same as energy. You cannot transfer momentum and expect the same energy because they have different equations.
IF a 100% transfer of energy between the masses were to be effected, then it would result in the 1kg mass having a velocity of sqrt(5) m/sec - approx 2.236 m/sec
Mass 1kg. Energy=2.5J
V=sqrt(2E/m)
=sqrt(2 x 2.5/1)
=sqrt(5)
=2.236 m/sec
E=(mv*2)/2
= 1 x sqrt(5)^2/2
=5/2
=2.5J
Ask any "top physicist" (or just a "normal" physicist, for that matter) and they will tell you the same.
The 1kg mass moving at 5 m/s has 12.5J and not 2.5J as you have falsely asserted above! More false assertions by you!
If a 100% transfer of momentum between the masses were to be effected, then it would result in the 1kg mass having a velocity of sqrt(25) m/sec - 5 m/sec and not the sqrt(5) m/sec - approx 2.236 m/sec as you have falsely asserted!
Mass 1kg. Energy=12.5J
V=sqrt(2E/m)
=sqrt(2 x 12.5/1)
=sqrt(25)
=5 m/sec
E=(mv*2)/2
= 1 x sqrt(25)^2/2
=25/2
=12.5J
One false assertion after another from EHT!
Gravock
-
Firstly, I have made no claims. Secondly, even if I did decide to do so, I would not need any of your "support", thank you.
Lastly, all the relevant math was in my rebuttal. If you want to argue, show me where it is wrong.
Your math, based on false assertions, is shown to be wrong in my previous post (reply #48) (http://overunity.com/17583/destroying-energy/msg516133/#msg516133)
Yes, I agree that you do not need any support in making false assertions and in misleading and misdirecting the reader!
Case Closed!
Gravock
-
kg * m / s
kg * m^2 / s^2
think more slowly
-
kg * m / s
kg * m^2 / s^2
think more slowly
Time should play the part instead of meters or distance. We should look upon Time as the result of the force that impels a body through space. The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed. Thus, if the force were infinitely great, time and space would be infinitely small, they would cease to exist. If the force was infinitely small, time and space would be infinitely great. But, again the force is not everything, because in reality it does not exist. All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it. The body's movement is then only limited by the resistance it has to overcome. What does exist then is the momentum that arises from the impulse of the force, and not the force itself.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, and the shortest Time between two points is a curved path! Mass travels faster on a curve than it does a straight line. In reality, it's a rectilinear motion through space. All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it. The impulse is the product of the force and the time for which it is applied . Without motion, then there is no Time for the force to impart momentum to it. Without Time, then there is no force to impart momentum to an object, thus there would be no motion.
The centrifugal force is described by classical mechanics as being a fictitious or fake inertial force. The Coriolis force is also described by classical mechanics as being a fictitious force. The Euler force is once again described by classical mechanics as being a fictitious force. Together, these three fictitious forces are necessary for the formulation of correct equations of motion in a rotating reference frame. Without these three fictitious forces, classical mechanics can't properly describe motion in a rotating reference frame. Physics also speaks of virtual photons, etc. Below is a snapshot at wiki on the "Fictitious Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force#Fictitious_centrifugal_force)". Both classical mechanics and quantum mechanics can't properly describe this universe as being real without fictitious forces, virtual photons, etc. There is only one thing in this universe that is real, and that is Spirit/Consciousness! Everything else is an illusion! The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is based on what appears to be the same nutbar logic as classical mechanics (fictitious or virtual forces, virtual particles, etc). Once we realize science has nothing to bring forth that is real, then we can move onto the next level of technological advances.
Think outside of your little deceitful box, which is scientism ( a science falsely so-called)!
Gravock
-
The momentum does not have the second unit of time
Because momentum is a relative term.
We require the other relation to determine energy.
It is not energy, it holds no energy, and cannot
Until you interact with it from another relative reference.
If I move at the same velocity as your Kg
It has no momentum.
In fact it has no velocity
We are both standing still
When your Kg impacts something, Then there is energy
Because you do not have one velocity, but Two
m/s * m/s = m^2/s=2
The velocity of your Kg, and the velocity of what it hit.
This is a relative term.
you did not “impart energy into your Kg”
but rather you increased the Kg’s relative velocity with
respect to your inertial reference.
Which equates to a Kinetic Energy potential, to your reference.
The energy you put into it to change the velocity
is also respective of your reference.
Change the reference, change the energy
Because the relative velocity has changed.
You can do this without making any changes to the Kg.
If your Kg is standing still
and the Earth moves towards it at 1000m/s
it will have the same momentum as if the Kg were moving
1000m/s and the Earth stood still.
without a stationary inertial frame, we don’t know the true
velocity of anything.
only it’s movement relative to our own.
Momentum by itself, cannot be related to Energy.
you need the other factor.
-
The momentum does not have the second unit of time
Because momentum is a relative term.
We require the other relation to determine energy.
It is not energy, it holds no energy, and cannot
Until you interact with it from another relative reference.
If I move at the same velocity as your Kg
It has no momentum.
In fact it has no velocity
We are both standing still
When your Kg impacts something, Then there is energy
Because you do not have one velocity, but Two
m/s * m/s = m^2/s=2
The velocity of your Kg, and the velocity of what it hit.
This is a relative term.
you did not “impart energy into your Kg”
but rather you increased the Kg’s relative velocity with
respect to your inertial reference.
Which equates to a Kinetic Energy potential, to your reference.
The energy you put into it to change the velocity
is also respective of your reference.
Change the reference, change the energy
Because the relative velocity has changed.
You can do this without making any changes to the Kg.
If your Kg is standing still
and the Earth moves towards it at 1000m/s
it will have the same momentum as if the Kg were moving
1000m/s and the Earth stood still.
without a stationary inertial frame, we don’t know the true
velocity of anything.
only it’s movement relative to our own.
Momentum by itself, cannot be related to Energy.
you need the other factor.
"The momentum does not have the second unit of time, because momentum is a relative term". That is total B.S.! Energy, like velocity, is also a relative measurement!
Why is the velocity squared in the kinetic energy equation, E = ½mv2. Why should the energy depend on the square of the velocity? We have the same question with the equation E = mc2. Why square the speed of light? Why should the energy depend on c2? Or, to extend the question, why should the energy of any moving particle, moving with a constant velocity, depend on the square of that velocity?
The measured wavelength and the real wavelength of the photon differ by a factor of c2. This is because the linear motion of the photon stretches the spin wavelength. The linear velocity is c, of course, and the circular velocity approaches 1/c. The difference between the two is c2. Energy, like velocity, is a relative measurement. A quantum with a certain energy has that energy only relative to us, since it has its velocity only relative to us. If the wavelength has to be multiplied by c2 in order to match it to our measurements, then the mass or mass equivalence will also. Hence the equation E = mc2. In this way, c2 is not a velocity or a velocity squared, it is a velocity transform. It tells us how much the wavelength is stretched, and therefore how much the mass and energy are stretched, due to the motion of the object.
The short answer is that the kinetic energy equation, like the equation E = mc2, always included the spin energy. Just as with the photon, all matter has a wavelength (see de Broglie), and the wavelength is determined by spin. The spin has a radius, and this radius is the local wavelength. Any linear velocity of the spinning particle will stretch our measurement of this wavelength, in a simple mechanical manner. As the linear velocity increases, the spin velocity relative to the linear velocity decreases, by a factor of 1/v. This makes the difference between the linear velocity and the spin velocity v2. The term v2 transforms the local wavelength into the measured wavelength. This is why we find the term in the energy equation.
The only question remaining is why we have the term ½ in the kinetic energy equation. The reason is simple. We are basically multiplying a wavelength transform by a mass, in order to calculate an energy. So we have to look at how the mass and the wavelength interact. What we have is a material particle spinning end-over-end. If we look at this spin over any extended time interval, we find that half the time the material particle is moving in the reverse direction of the linear motion. Circular motion cannot follow linear motion, of course, and if we average the circular motion over time, only half the circular motion will match the linear vector. This means that half the effective mass will be lost, hence the equation we have.
Gravock
-
@EHT
Have you built the testbed?
respectfully
-
Thanks EHT, you've started a really interesting thought experiment (and maybe soon some actual experiments). ;) ;)