Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

A-Ads

MN LiveCoach

Masternodes Live Coaching

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 513324
  • *Total Topics: 15278
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 17
  • *Total: 18

Author Topic: perpetual motion  (Read 29560 times)

Offline david lambright

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #30 on: August 14, 2010, 12:12:10 AM »
jesus....OK, so give me a little while and i will send you a device!.....it does not weigh much, so shipping should not be a problem....thanks for your interest...david

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #30 on: August 14, 2010, 12:12:10 AM »

Offline nievesoliveras

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1996
Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #31 on: August 14, 2010, 12:14:19 AM »
jesus....OK, so give me a little while and i will send you a device!.....it does not weigh much, so shipping should not be a problem....thanks for your interest...david

Thank you, I will wait.

Jesus

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #32 on: August 14, 2010, 01:03:52 AM »

This gets to the very heart of the matter, the fact that many people have confused the context and terminology relating to perpetual motion. Physics states catagorically that everything is in perpetual motion--period, but this does not mean anything has gained energy in any way, the conservation of energy will continue to hold true as it should.
Regards
AC

Hi AC.  I've just seen this thread.  I thought Dave started it and then saw that I was looking at page 2.  Very interesting topic.

Just out of interest - say something knocked our planet out of its orbit that it moved closer to the sun.  Then it also described a tighter faster orbit around the sun due to it's greater proximity to the sun's mass.  Then what?  Is the increased orbital velocity a result of a gravitational pull from the sun?  Or is that velocity determined by the strength of the impact that first knocked it out of orbit?

As I'm arguing it here - the force of the impact is entirely dissipated in repositioning it nearer the sun.  Yet it develops a greater velocity.  And in a second example - the force of impact is NOT entirely dissipated in repositioning it.   And yet its velocity is determined by that gravitational proximity that overrides the energy that first repositioned it.

Which means that theoretically, the energy added to the object from the force of impact can be overridden by the force of gravity.  What's happened to all that energy that has not yet been dissipated or expressed in that velocity from that early impact?

It is the same in an electric current from an AC supply source.  If the electron 'gives up its energy' to, let us say 'heat' in a resistor - then that same electron still returns to its source with the same energy quotient that it had when it first left the source. 

Then - using fire as an example.  It takes the smallest effort to generate the smallest spark that can generate a conflagration that can entirely consume a whole forest.  Yet the energy input to generate that spark required almost no effort at all.

In my opinion there are many, many examples where energy seems to exceed the laws of conservation. I'm sure they can be argued either way.  But it may give some pause for thought?

Regards,
Rosemary




 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #32 on: August 14, 2010, 01:03:52 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline mscoffman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #33 on: August 15, 2010, 02:38:05 AM »
Hi AC.  I've just seen this thread.  I thought Dave started it and then saw that I was looking at page 2.  Very interesting topic.

Just out of interest - say something knocked our planet out of its orbit that it moved closer to the sun.  Then it also described a tighter faster orbit around the sun due to it's greater proximity to the sun's mass.  Then what?  Is the increased orbital velocity a result of a gravitational pull from the sun?  Or is that velocity determined by the strength of the impact that first knocked it out of orbit?
...



Rosemary;

It turns out that the tighter the orbit the *higher* the systems energy.
So to get to the surface of the sun from orbit around it takes quite a bit
of energy. (this is opposed to a collision course where there is no orbiting).

So spacecraft use retrorockets to add energy until atmospheric drag
adds enough to have the earth and the spacecraft be in the same inertial
frame.

The opposite of course is true of an increasing orbit. The earth/moon
system looses orbital momentum due to tidal interaction, and the moon
moves away from the earth because of it.

There was an interesting article in an Aviation Magazine on spacecraft
orbital rendezvous techniques that they do in phases because of the
counter intuitive energetic processes of an orbiting spacecraft.

:S:MarkSCoffman

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline BobTEW

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #34 on: August 16, 2010, 03:46:25 PM »
Oh Mr. Tesla what if energy is both static and kinetic.  Dave love your work on magnetics.  I working on an idea a magnet attraction {static and negative]/ repel {kinetic x2 positive} forces or fields.  Rosemary I give you "d' orbital electron". The top tear drop sphere spins c.w. to dominate over the lower sphere spinning c.c.w.
More come later,      BobTEW                                                                                                                     
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 05:32:35 PM by BobTEW »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #34 on: August 16, 2010, 03:46:25 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #35 on: August 17, 2010, 12:48:05 PM »
Oh Mr. Tesla what if energy is both static and kinetic.  Dave love your work on magnetics.  I working on an idea a magnet attraction {static and negative]/ repel {kinetic x2 positive} forces or fields.  Rosemary I give you "d' orbital electron". The top tear drop sphere spins c.w. to dominate over the lower sphere spinning c.c.w.
More come later,      BobTEW                                                                                                                   

Hello Bob - welcome to the discussion.  Would love to know more about the tear drop sphere spins but have no idea what c.w or c.c.w stand for?  Be glad if you could explain.  Dave has started his own thread.  I'll post a link to it.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9603.msg252833#new

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline nievesoliveras

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1996
Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #36 on: August 17, 2010, 02:59:53 PM »
@rosemary

I think that cw stands for clockwise and ccw counter clockwise.

Jesus

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #36 on: August 17, 2010, 02:59:53 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline david lambright

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #37 on: August 17, 2010, 10:16:05 PM »
jesus, i believe you are correct.....rose, thanks for posting that link to that new thread...i appologize if i got carried away on this thread with my stuff.. .here is a question, what has to be in motion, can it be visual motion?..like rising heat?...if so, these devices are at least persistent in their visual motion...david

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #38 on: August 18, 2010, 10:38:47 AM »
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9603.msg253069#new

Hi Guys,
That's the link to Dave's new thread.  Sorry I was a bit tardy here.  And abject apologies to Allcanadian in these extraneous discussions.

Dave - I think the prospect of perpetual motion - as discussed here - relates to the possibility or otherwise of producing work from that motion.  That it exists in a perpetual moving state is more or less acknowledged.  I may be wrong here but I think that's a fair summation.

« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 03:25:59 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #38 on: August 18, 2010, 10:38:47 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #39 on: August 18, 2010, 04:01:39 PM »
Hi AC.  I've just seen this thread.  I thought Dave started it and then saw that I was looking at page 2.  Very interesting topic.

Just out of interest - say something knocked our planet out of its orbit that it moved closer to the sun.  Then it also described a tighter faster orbit around the sun due to it's greater proximity to the sun's mass.  Then what?  Is the increased orbital velocity a result of a gravitational pull from the sun?  Or is that velocity determined by the strength of the impact that first knocked it out of orbit?

As I'm arguing it here - the force of the impact is entirely dissipated in repositioning it nearer the sun.  Yet it develops a greater velocity.  And in a second example - the force of impact is NOT entirely dissipated in repositioning it.   And yet its velocity is determined by that gravitational proximity that overrides the energy that first repositioned it.

Which means that theoretically, the energy added to the object from the force of impact can be overridden by the force of gravity.  What's happened to all that energy that has not yet been dissipated or expressed in that velocity from that early impact?

It is the same in an electric current from an AC supply source.  If the electron 'gives up its energy' to, let us say 'heat' in a resistor - then that same electron still returns to its source with the same energy quotient that it had when it first left the source. 

Then - using fire as an example.  It takes the smallest effort to generate the smallest spark that can generate a conflagration that can entirely consume a whole forest.  Yet the energy input to generate that spark required almost no effort at all.

In my opinion there are many, many examples where energy seems to exceed the laws of conservation. I'm sure they can be argued either way.  But it may give some pause for thought?

Regards,
Rosemary

The answers to the questions you pose are trivial and I am surprised you are asking them.

I believe the orbit one has already been answered, but essentially, if the planet keeps orbiting the sun at the same speed as before, but is suddenly forced to shift to a closer orbit, the orbital period will decrease.  It's like a ball on a tether, winding around a pole, same concept.

With electricity, electrons that bump into obstacles generate heat.  So resistance would cause an electron not to make it all the way around, and this is how you lose power over time.

And with fire, are you serious about this?  Yes, the initial spark did not require much energy, but it was a catalyst for a large scale chemical reaction that converts mass into energy.  The energy of a forest fire comes from the consumption of wood on a mass scale.  This goes back to E=MC2, and the laws of conservation of energy are in full effect during a forest fire.  As soon as there is no more wood to burn, the fire ends.

I was going to go and read the documents about your invention from the beginning to see if I could grasp it, since you seemed to be a serious scientist, but now I think it would be a waste of time, if you seriously hold the positions you just described.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #40 on: August 18, 2010, 04:09:00 PM »
The answers to the questions you pose are trivial and I am surprised you are asking them.

I believe the orbit one has already been answered, but essentially, if the planet keeps orbiting the sun at the same speed as before, but is suddenly forced to shift to a closer orbit, the orbital period will decrease.  It's like a ball on a tether, winding around a pole, same concept.

With electricity, electrons that bump into obstacles generate heat.  So resistance would cause an electron not to make it all the way around, and this is how you lose power over time.

And with fire, are you serious about this?  Yes, the initial spark did not require much energy, but it was a catalyst for a large scale chemical reaction that converts mass into energy.  The energy of a forest fire comes from the consumption of wood on a mass scale.  This goes back to E=MC2, and the laws of conservation of energy are in full effect during a forest fire.  As soon as there is no more wood to burn, the fire ends.

I was going to go and read the documents about your invention from the beginning to see if I could grasp it, since you seemed to be a serious scientist, but now I think it would be a waste of time, if you seriously hold the positions you just described.

Hello shruggedatlas.  Feel free to entertain your opinions.  No doubt they're valid.  I have no interest in arguing the merits of something that is dismissed out of hand.  And you've both missed and dismissed the point of my post - entirely.

regards,
Rosemary
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 06:09:08 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #40 on: August 18, 2010, 04:09:00 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #41 on: August 18, 2010, 04:11:19 PM »
@shruggedatlas,

I agree it's a waste of time to read Rosemary's stuff because her claims are entirely groundless let alone that she demonstrated complete lack of basic understanding in chemistry and physics.

However, let me ask you what are you talking about:

Quote
Yes, the initial spark did not require much energy, but it was a catalyst for a large scale chemical reaction that converts mass into energy.

You don't know that there's no conversion of mass into energy in chemical reactions, is that it? Please correct that at once because it's embarrassing.

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #42 on: August 18, 2010, 06:05:21 PM »
You don't know that there's no conversion of mass into energy in chemical reactions, is that it? Please correct that at once because it's embarrassing.

I am not a scientist, so I may have used the wrong terminology.  But I think that fire is basically  oxygen combining with molecules from the fuel, which happens at an appropriate heat level.  Energy is also released during this process.

Offline spinn_MP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #43 on: August 19, 2010, 06:16:22 PM »
The answers to the questions you pose are trivial and I am surprised you are asking them.

I believe the orbit one has already been answered, but essentially, if the planet keeps orbiting the sun at the same speed as before, but is suddenly forced to shift to a closer orbit, the orbital period will decrease.  It's like a ball on a tether, winding around a pole, same concept.
Yes, conservation of momentum, Coriolis, etc... Heil to free energy kicks and knocks..
Quote
With electricity, electrons that bump into obstacles generate heat.  So resistance would cause an electron not to make it all the way around, and this is how you lose power over time.
What do you mean by electron would not to make it all the way around? ...loosing power over time???
You should check up Mr. Gustav Kirchoff... There are some LAWS named after him.... Think about his 1st one... An electrotechnical equivalent of CoE... Conservation of charge? Anyone? Ah, sorry...
Quote
And with fire, are you serious about this?  Yes, the initial spark did not require much energy, but it was a catalyst for a large scale chemical reaction that converts mass into energy.  The energy of a forest fire comes from the consumption of wood on a mass scale.  This goes back to E=MC2, and the laws of conservation of energy are in full effect during a forest fire.  As soon as there is no more wood to burn, the fire ends.
Chemical reactions do not have anything with the E=mc2 equation...
With a wood (or even any chemical reaction/oxidation) burning, there actually isn't any mass to energy conversion happening...
This is a common knowledge, widely known even on the primary school chemistry level... Hell, even OmniBot knows that...
Quote
I was going to go and read the documents about your invention from the beginning to see if I could grasp it, since you seemed to be a serious scientist, but now I think it would be a waste of time, if you seriously hold the positions you just described.
There's not even one active member on this site, who can claim about himself that he (she) is a REAL scientist....
Surely you knew that?

Unless, of course, you really think that OmniBot is a scientist? :-)

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
Re: perpetual motion
« Reply #44 on: August 19, 2010, 11:25:56 PM »
When an object is in obrit, such as the earth orbiting the sun,
or even our own satellites orbiting the earth (moon excluded due to extra variables)

is orbits in a near-perfect balance bewteen gravitational pull and centrifugal outward-force. gravity slightly wins this battle, but the balance is so close that the wind-down of orbital circumference is very slow. This can only occur when the planet or object enters the attraction field at relatively tangential angles to the gravitational sphere. If the object is vectorally directed on a path too perpendicular, or to obtuse the object will either crash into the mass, or fly right past it. the materials that formed the planets in our solar system, passed the sun at just the appropriate angle to become trapped in their circling-spiral towards the center of the sun.

if you take a ball, and wrap a think wire around it concentrically, like a pancake-coil. then stretch this up like a spring.
now cut each "ring" seperate, and flatten them all out so they piece together like a jugsaw puzzle, of concenrtic spirals.

each ring represents a single orbit around the mass (sun, earth, atom, ect). without an outside force interfering with its velocity, as the satellite moves into each closer ring, its velocity will increase with the increase of strength of the gravitational field.
This is very similar to magnetism, except that the gravitational field changes with both distance AND time, whereas the magnetic field only changes with distance. - they are both caused by the same force, but the differences between the two manifestations could take up an entire other thread to explain. The gravitational force at each closer ring is stronger than the ring before, and this is where the energy is drawn from to accelerate the orbital velocity of the satellite.

When the satellite slows down, due to outside interactions, it (normally) moves to a closer orbit to the mass, which accelerates the satellite, until it either enters into a collisional vector, or regains the orbital-balance, of pull in both directions.

When the satellite is sped-up by outside interactions, it moves to an orbit further away from the mass. more centrifugal force pulling it outward, until enough time and distance pass than the mass can begin to slow it down again, and the ortibal balance is one again at equilibrium. If too much energy was transfered into the satellite from an outside collision, it can free the satellite completely from the gravitational field and it will fly off into space.

This is identicle to what occurs around the atomic structure.

its not perpetual motion, but it is very very close.
The remaining "half-life" of our solar system is longer than the expected life-span of our sun. But all one has to do is look at Mercury, to see what happens to an electron as it about to collide into an atomic nuclii.

When you analyize the vectoral direction of the electron spin, at this moment, you will begin to understand the true nature of atomic radiation, and the interactions that take place when the atom "decays" into another type of element.

When you analyze an orbit, you must consider the two perpendicular forces towards and away from the gravitational field, as well as the forward momentum. Momentum is always conserved, but an increase or decrease in the force of the gravitational field translates into velocity changes in the satellite.
minus the energy required to offset its momentum.

the energy of the field is exponentially greater mass for mass than the energy added to the satellite as it moves to a closer distance.
Meaning there is exponentially more energy contained in the field than is required to acellerate the satellite to its orbital-velocity.

Take for instance a coil, positioned in a stationary magnetic field.
due to the magnetic interactions between the nucleus and the magnetic field, the electrons assume a particular energy level, and thus establish an associated orbit around the copper atom.
When you move this coil towards the magnet, electricity flows through the coil. The energy you put into the coil to move it closer, is offset perfectly by the lorent'z force, holding you back.
so, "where" does this energy come from??  It comes from the field itself, and the fact that the coil is moving through it.

As the field-strength becomes greater, the magnetic interactions become more intense, and the electron assumes a higher energy-state. if you move far enough into the field, and at a fast enough rate, the electrons will "fly" out of their atomic-orbit and travel along the conductive path of the wire.
This would be similar to hitting the earth from behind with a fast moving asteroid and accelerating it to an orbit further out, or out of orbit completely.

Nothing we observe is in a state of true "pertual motion", but everything seems to be moving perpetually.
There are fields of energy everywhere, and when one orbit breaks down, the mass will be captured and accelerated into another orbit, starting the whole process over again.

like an electron breaking free from an atom, only to be captured into orbit by an ion nearby, and then accelerated back up orbital velocity.

These fields of energy exist on every level, from the smallest we can imagine, to the largest of scales we can comprehend.
To the point that we cannot create an area of space void of all energy, much less figure out a way to measure it if we did.

There is infinite energy all around us, thats why everything is in perpetual motion. Mercury may one day crash into the sun, when its orbit decays, and it will be consumed by the sun, and spat out of spews of dust, light, and radiation.
and Mercury ( or rather its pieces) will travel on through the universe on route to their next semi-perpetual destiny.
We know a great deal about these fields, where they come from, how to interact with them,
its just a matter of utilzying the fields of energy at the right time, and in the right way to achieve a desired outcome.






 

OneLink