Michel Posted January 6, 2006 Author #76 Share Posted January 6, 2006 The problem is that the weight of the descending blocks is counteracted by the weight of the rising blocks. Eventually, the entire rotation grinds to a halt. Not!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted January 6, 2006 #77 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Think you could elaborate a little? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Posted January 6, 2006 Author #78 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Think you could elaborate a little? Archimedes' Principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted January 7, 2006 #79 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Posted January 7, 2006 Author #80 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Go on. http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopi...?t=775&start=15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted January 7, 2006 #81 Share Posted January 7, 2006 No, no, I am waiting for you to argue your point. What, in you opinion, is the fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Posted January 7, 2006 Author #82 Share Posted January 7, 2006 No, no, I am waiting for you to argue your point. What, in you opinion, is the fault. They is my opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted January 7, 2006 #83 Share Posted January 7, 2006 No, they 'is' theories of natural phenomena which do not conflict in any way with the statement that I made. If you believe that they do, explain how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Posted January 9, 2006 Author #84 Share Posted January 9, 2006 No, they 'is' theories of natural phenomena which do not conflict in any way with the statement that I made. If you believe that they do, explain how. It is explained here: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...0entry1008260 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted January 9, 2006 #85 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Yes, I read that. My opinion stands. By the time your piston changes the mass (i.e., the weight) of your hermetically sealed units, the force required to do that will be greater than the force generated by the unit floating up to the surface. Eventually, unless power is being supplied externally, which I am unable to see where that occurs (but then, my French is a bit rusty), the unit will grind to a halt as soon as the initial energy is used up. Can you show me what part of your explanation deals with the problem of the amount of work to change the weight of the floaters being greater than the amount of work the floater will provide by moving to the surface? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Posted January 10, 2006 Author #86 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Can you show me what part of your explanation deals with the problem of the amount of work to change the weight of the floaters being greater than the amount of work the floater will provide by moving to the surface?To increase the volume of float, the energy of the system is not taken. They is two things quite separate! It is explained here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopi...?t=775&start=15 And here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopi...p?p=22416#22416 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted January 10, 2006 #87 Share Posted January 10, 2006 The first link has fifteen different responses. Can you paste the relevant one? The second link is the same one you posted one page ago, that I already asked you to show me where my point was addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Posted January 10, 2006 Author #88 Share Posted January 10, 2006 The first link has fifteen different responses. Can you paste the relevant one?Method of checking by calculations of the engine 01 11357: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=9549#9549 The second link is the same one you posted one page ago, that I already asked you to show me where my point was addressed.English text complete 01 11357: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=252#252 Original in PDF: http://perpetuum.monsite.wanadoo.fr/page8.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted January 10, 2006 #89 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Method of checking by calculations of the engine 01 11357: Thank you, but calculations are not what I am looking for. Calculations can be done for practically anything. I am looking for a basic answer, and I am not getting it. The ultimate question when dealing with perpetual motion machines is "Does it generate more power than it consumes?" Unless you can answer, without the slightest hesitation, "Yes", you do not have a perpetual motion machine. I took a quick look at the calculations out of interest, but all I saw was an equivalency formulation, in that the device was using (theoretically) the same amount of power to run as it generated, and the deduction that by extending the device another five feet, it would generate an excess. Needless to say, the extension itself would require new calculations, and even so, the original questions still remains "Where is the extra energy coming from?" English text complete 01 11357: Original in PDF: Honestly, I found the French a bit less confusing. I'm a little fuzzy on how the unit that is sinking is pushing the air within it to the unit that is rising opposite from it. Wouldn't the force of the air being pushed out of the descending piston be overcome by the pressure of the air in the ascending piston, since the descending piston is going into a high-pressure area, and the other into a low pressure area? At the very least, the forces would cancel out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Posted January 11, 2006 Author #90 Share Posted January 11, 2006 "Does it generate more power than it consumes?" Yes! I repeat: - To increase the volume of float, the energy of the system is not taken. They is two things quite separate! 5 m - 0,5 m = 4,5 m http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...dpost&p=1008260 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
korsakof Posted January 12, 2006 #91 Share Posted January 12, 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted January 12, 2006 #92 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Is anyone here capable of answering their questions with something other than links to the last page of this thread, which I have already stated that I have read and have a question about? Obviously, the explanation offered in the original text wasn't clear enough; can you present the information from a different to address the point of where the extra energy is coming from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Posted January 12, 2006 Author #93 Share Posted January 12, 2006 can you present the information from a different to address the point of where the extra energy is coming from? There is not additional energy. One uses the FORCES (the gravitation be the force of Archimedes) to produce energy. End! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidCat Posted January 12, 2006 #94 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Michel, arguing this is nearly pointless. To wit: The universe is in a constant state of flux; the standard narrow-minded concept that we cannot use this constant changing to give us energy is in and of itself fallacious. Anyone who has ever used an airlift (a simple device used for dredging bottoms of rivers, ports, and so forth) or a suction dredge will know that there are ways of utilizing some of these changes. There are many researches into free energy. One misconception seems to be that something is derived from nothing, itself a concept untrue. Free energy means simply that: the excess energy is usable conventionally, and that which obtains it does not necessarily exceed the derived energy. How that is accomplished is open. I've given many sites that address just such things, yet those naysayers have yet to address those sites. Michel, as you very likely are aware, there are many things yet to be explained by our 'modern physics'. It would be to your advantage to simply continue your quests, share the results, and ignore those who either do not understand, refuse to understand, or are incapable of such understanding. There are hundreds of methods of obtaining free energy. Let it go at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STIX Posted January 12, 2006 #95 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I have read nothing in this entire thread, besides the first post. THOSE LINKS ARE FALSE! there is no limitless energy. There is however, near limitless energy. what is called, zero-point energy. New theories and speculations by top physicists, some even futher past M-theory, could suggest that one cubic centimeter of "empty space" could hold more 'ENERGY' then all the matter in the entire visible universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidCat Posted January 12, 2006 #96 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I have read nothing in this entire thread, besides the first post. THOSE LINKS ARE FALSE! there is no limitless energy. There is however, near limitless energy. what is called, zero-point energy. New theories and speculations by top physicists, some even futher past M-theory, could suggest that one cubic centimeter of "empty space" could hold more 'ENERGY' then all the matter in the entire visible universe. What links? Who mentioned limitless? If you refer to my posts, you would find one which states I don't think perpetual motion (limitless energy) is feasible. However, you would find numerous references to other forms of free energy, all of which, to my knowledge, will go away eventually. Most of the ones I know of and have direct familiarity with are those which somehow do what is called by Rho Sigma an 'ortho-rotation' of ZPE into our coherent 3 space. Among those are the Gray motor, the spiral vortex, certain types of magnetic usages, and Bearden's transformer, among others. I will state once again that free energy is not only possible, it is being used daily. I will also state that it is not only reasonable, it is rational for us to strive to remove ourselves from the use of hydrocarbons as much as possible. Are you aware of the couple that bought Toyota RAVs that were electric cars? The husband converted a lease to direct purchase after one year, the spouse didn't and had the car pulled when the lease was up. Both these people used solar collectors to charge the batteries for their cars... While the range of said vehicles isn't much, they are adequate for commuting. And the energy used is, in fact, free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Posted January 13, 2006 Author #97 Share Posted January 13, 2006 There are hundreds of methods of obtaining free energy. Let it go at that. Ok! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nameless One Posted January 13, 2006 #98 Share Posted January 13, 2006 (edited) It's not hard to see that the universe itself is a perpetual motion machine. Assuming that nothing can exist outside of the universe as we perceive it, it is possible for the universe to be, what I think would be considered, perpetual motion. Now assume that there was a Big Bang, and there will be a Big Crunch. It could be a possibility that the Big Crunch will set off another Big Bang and create another universe from the impact on itself. It can't lose energy because there is nothing to lose it to. But then again how could people benifit from this approach? They can't. But maybe, just maybe another idea would be to use light through a digital mirror to create perpetual motion, the mirrors would have to be perfectly relative and since no 2 natural glass mirrors on earth could be perfectly relative to each other then we would have to use a digital mirror, and reflect the light. Or maybe if we could harness a way to attract lightning, and static repeatedly maybe we can harness free energy that way as well. Perpetual Motion is an interesting subject, because the first man who can find a way to process it, so that for everyone can benefit from it will be not only the richest man on earth, but also will go down in history as probably the most intellegent man in the universe. Peace TNO. Edited January 13, 2006 by The Nameless One Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Posted January 22, 2006 Author #99 Share Posted January 22, 2006 It's not hard to see that the universe itself is a perpetual motion machine. They is true! http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=9565#9565 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnetar Posted January 22, 2006 #100 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Nothing to say just now, except that I have run across this man's name as a prominent figure in the world of electrical engineering- Gabriel Kron. His worked employed tensor analysis to smooth out what he termed "phase creep" in very large machinery. I have seen suppositions that he was very curious about the ineffeciencies he sought to displace. I read a paper, but don't remember where. He supposedly posited the altering of spacetime using the so-called phase creep effect, for what that may be worth. He is considered the most brilliant, if not the most interesting of his kind, at G.E. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts