The Perpetual Motion Engine

Does it keep Adam alive or merely make him seem so?

I read an article once in New Scientist magazine that pondered this very question along with other seemingly immpossible things, perpetual motion was one of the few impossible ideas that todays laws of physics would not allow, time travel however, is a possibility!

Esteemed Colleagues,

I have never been able to understand why electrons forever whiz around in an atom with no energy degradation of the atom. This seems to me to fly in the face of our understanding of entropy and perpetual motion.

Any comments?

Heat my good man, without it there would be no motion whatsoever.

Actually, no, on several counts:

1. Electrons don't 'whiz' around an atomic nucleus. They exist as standing waves of sorts (remember your wave/particle duality from primary school) having an integral number of wavelengths. This is why orbital electrons absorb and release energy in discrete steps rather than as a continuum of energies. The term 'orbital' does not imply motion, and it has nothing to do with motion. 'Orbital' is a vestigal term from an earlier time when the mechanics of atoms was poorly understood.

2. Quantum Mechanics says it is not possible to reach Absolute Zero -- implying no motion whatsoever -- because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. HUP says you cannot know both the momentum and the location of a particle with complete certainty simultaneously. If you know the particle's location with complete certainty then the momentum is off the map. If you know the momentum with complete certainty, then it's anyone's guess as to where the particle is actually located. No motion whatsoever implies that you know completely both the particle's momentum and the location at the same time, and you cannot know this. The HUP forbids it.

Electron motion is driven by energy from the environment, usually in the form of heat or light.

You are wasting your time here, there is no such thing, nor is it possible, though many cranks have tried to prove it!!!

Also, we of CR4 are all willing to change our minds when the machine has been made and proved, till then, take some very good advice, keep it to yourself.....thanks in advance.

Andy Germany

"Also, we of CR4 are all willing to change our minds when the machine has been made and proved" -If everyone took this attitude then we, as a human race, would still be trying to figure out fire.

We as engineers and scientists should keep open minds otherwise what we get is just another form of religion. If I am not mistaken at one point the common belief was that the world was flat and this was disproven.

You are incorrect to say "You are wasting your time here, there is no such thing, nor is it possible" (unless you can tell the future, if so what can you please forward the Lottery numbers for next week please !!). As I said earlier it is currently impossible with what we know and understand but just look how far we have come in the last 150 years. If we made half the progress that we made in the last 150 years in the next 150 years then you never know.

I do have an issue with idiots trying to sell other idiots an over unity machine but I don't think we should stop/ban/ prevent discussions/research into this area.

Kind Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

HoleinThe Snow,

We as engineers and scientists should keep open minds otherwise what we get is just another form of religion.

I don't totally agree with that, as engineers and scientist. to advance one needs to have repeatable proofs and results.

If we all went off and believed every claim and reinforced them, then the engineering and the scientific community would be come stagnant. Because our valuable time would be wasting away on unvalidated claims.

phoenix911

You only need to combine open mindedness with common sense.

true, it the balance that people have issues with.

"You only need to combine open mindedness with common sense."

Really? Where is the "common sense" in Quantum Theory?

Where is the "common sense" in Heisenbergs mathematical workaround for insufficient data?

j.

You don't get my point... I meant in general, on a philosophical scale, I wasn't talking about Quantum Physics as no one else was at that point.

nothing is common in quantum mechanics

And the problem is that intuition tells us it ought to be common and obvious.

Although he accepted it eventually even Einstein was discombobulated by quantums counter intuitive appearance.

j.

Then you have to bring in Heisenberg, which help explains it, or confuses the ones that can't grasp.

At least they, as in me would be in good company.

Hello phoenix911,

I am not suggesting that we run off and believe and reinforce every claim that comes in. What I am suggesting is that we listen with an open mind to what is being said.

We will become stagnant if we do not have open minds. You probably have come across the "this is how we always done it" argument when you try to suggest something new - this is the same type of thing.

I think Lemmy70 made a good point when he/she (Lemmy70 sorry either way) said that you should have an "open mind with common sense".

Just for the record I have no patents on nor do I actually design or own any over unity machines/ devices. However if some idiot customer is willing give me lots of money for an over unity machine then I will gladly package something into a box and claim that it is an over unity machine.

Kind Regards

Mr W.A Snow

I am not suggesting that we run off and believe and reinforce every claim that comes in. What I am suggesting is that we listen with an open mind to what is being said.

We will become stagnant if we do not have open minds. You probably have come across the "this is how we always done it" argument when you try to suggest something new - this is the same type of thing.

good clarification,

Just for the record I have no patents on nor do I actually design or own any over unity machines/ devices. However if some idiot customer is willing give me lots of money for an over unity machine then I will gladly package something into a box and claim that it is an over unity machine.

Be careful with that type of statement, after having owned and operated a design and fabrication business specializing in OEM processes, No matter how much money the customer is throwing at you and how hair brained his idea is, YOU have an obligation to steer the customer to a project that will perform. Because once you take on that project, you also take on the responsibility for it to perform. No matter the temptation, one can not chase after the money blindly, and at times the money is huge, you have to resists, and think of the results or consequences.

phoenix911

"We as engineers and scientists should keep open minds otherwise what we get is just another form of religion."

No. What you get is a bunch of alchemists.

The difference between an open scientific or engineers mind and just an open mind is that we accept the discipline of the scientific process; i.e., we proceed on a factual basis expressed as interlocking theories gleaned from the material world using the scientific method.

The alchemists, when they started, had no such. A few of them noting certain similarities and relationships in their random experiments began to rely on those and so started the transition to science and scientific method.

On the other hand note the signature phrase used by the fellow that started this thread, "Anything is possible."

Really?

j.

Jack Jersawitz,

You are basing you assertions on what we currently know and understand. I am holding out the hope that future generations will improve on what we know- (God help the planet if we are/ will be the cleverest things on it), therefore I believe that anything is possible. Just look how far we have come in the last couple of hundred years, it was only 40 years ago, approx, that the first person walked on the moon (that is if you disregard all the conspiracy theorists), now we are talking of having hotels etc in space.

I am an engineer and I will only accept things based on fact, however I am willing to listen to 100 crack pot ideas in the hope that the 101st one is something new and that it can/ could be proven.

I don't think we actually disagree on this, I think we have a different way of expressing it.

Kind Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

We disagree sharply.

Set the same task I will solve it far faster than you because I won't listen to every trash proposal.

The difference is that you apparently don't see that our line of development is not based, beyond the age of alchemy, on random ideas unrelated to our line of general common knowledge. When a phenomenon does turn up that we have not seen before, usually some sort of animal (Including at the bacterial level), we understand it by resorting to our knowledge of all the other animals. At the microscopic level the problem is usually to get at how it functions, i.e., its life process. Hence, the difficult and puzzling AIDs virus was finally and relatively quickly understood as being nothing more than a beast that mutates very quickly although that remains problem enough.

On the contrary, none of the things we have done are simply out of the blue. That is your pretense.

There is no escaping the nature of the physics underlying our universe' reality.

I have never yet been presented with a crackpot idea whose flawed core was not immediately obvious. There are plenty of folks around here who after three or four sentences have been brought to a halt with the demand "Evidence?"

j.

Set the same task I will solve it far faster than you because I won't listen to every trash proposal.

And become a facilitator.

An example, is when developing new processes, I enjoy input from the shop floor………to a point.

Because if you don't control the situation, some people just talk only for the reason because they enjoy listening to their own voice, and don't say anything of value.

It comes a time when a decision has to be made and get things done.

phoenix911

Yeah! But you have to admit that the super bright people with ideas well over the heads or the common people are often just under or over the insanity line

Jack Jersawitz,

"We disagree sharply" - yes after reading your additional posts I could not agree more.

"Set the same task I will solve it far faster than you because I won't listen to every trash proposal" - your closed mindness is only outdone by your arrogance.

This is why the car industry in the US has collapsed (the ability to embrace new ideas etc has lead to their downfall, this is just one example. This is also true with companies through out Europe).

I would seriously doubt that a person with your limited ability to progress beyond what is taught from a book could actually complete a challenging task quicker that I or anyone else for that matter.

You require evidence to believe a theory/ law etc - however you will never have the ability to actually get that evidence for yourself, someone else will have to get it for you. I also doubt that you would have the ability to assess the evidence set in front of you. That is where we differ.

You also seemed to disregard the fact that future generations may make additional discoveries -again this is possibly another side effect of your arrogance.

Kind Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

HoleInTheSnow,

This is why the car industry in the US has collapsed (the ability to embrace new ideas etc has lead to their downfall, this is just one example.

Your trying to compare management concepts and direction with engineering concepts.....completely different

phoenix911

I would suggest that the car industry in the U.S. is not the only place it is collapsing which should lead an observant mind to the recognition that an industry, or all industry, posited on constant expansion of production, seeking constant expansion of profit through reinvestment of profit as industrial capital, is a virtual impossibility.

Just consider the history; a seven year business cycle and the longer 60-70 year great depression. Consider also that even those newly developed economies, China for instance, all experience in the beginning the seven year short cycle, and now tied to export to the West are entering the biggest depressive collapse ever.

j.

phoenix911, Yes I agree, the two are different. However the destructive nature of a closed mind was what I was trying to convey.

Kind Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

Talk about arrogance!

You don't know me nor anything about me. But you do display what a fool you are.

Either reality, i.e., the material concrete universe in which we exist, is orderly or it is chaotic.

Greater minds than mine or thine have said it is orderly and they give ample evidence that is so although it should be clear from the very fact that even while disagreeing we can use a common language, we can make reference to common experiences, and we share with the rest of the world common material experiences.

Further, the history of the development of science links every development backwards to what came before, even to the too often chaotic methods of alchemy.

Further, even those discoveries that were initially a surprise, when you look carefully were discovered because they occurred within the framework of ordered investigation. They were noticed, often, because within the ordered framework they stood out against what the framework suggested should be happening.

Chaos theory itself had to prove there was no such thing as chaos because materiality is ordered. Were it not then our material ordered brains would themselves be unable to perceive.

Nothing in reality, no idea, no concept, no new thing, exists except that it is linked or related in some way to what came before. There is development, but development is linked consciously or not, to what came before.

In terms of the sheer number of minds on the planet it is obvious, that if every hare-brained idea that came up were considered, we would all still be back in the stone age.

It is not at all a matter of close mindedness but rather the fact that our minds are themselves materially ordered and that the most economic use of those minds and our self awareness and ability to monitor their process is what is at the root of our science.

You ought to stop smoking whatever it is you smoke.

All the rest, all your garbage about free thinking and discovery, is just that, garbage.

j.

Jack Jersawitz,

You are right that I do not know anything about you, nor do you know anything about me. I am sure after this thread has finished we will still know nothing about each other. However I am sure that your opinion about me is a result of your eductaion (or perhaps lack of), so I will not hold this against you. The most exotic/ wild thing that you probably have done is have a Big Mac without fries. After all we all know how Liberal and open minded Georgia is.

"You ought to stop smoking whatever it is you smoke" -and perhaps you should seriously re-consider the inter family marriages that clearly take place in your neck of the woods, it is clearly having a effect on your ability to think straight.

Now getting back to the thread:- I am sure you will agree with me that it does take a spark of brillance to actually come up with a concept/ idea etc - this involves somebody thinking outside the box. Yes of course we look at our current knowledge to validate/invalidate this new idea/concept. I am not disagreeing with that. If you would have your way then we would not have progressed past lighting a fire.

I do not disagree with your points about the need to an have ordered and structured approach, however my point is that this should come after the initial discovery/ suggestion (or whatever you would like to call it).

I also agree that it is impractical to listen to all the "new" ideas that come about, however we need to listen and discuss some of them.

Something tells me that I will not be getting a Christmas card from you .

Kind Regards

Your "Friend"

Mr. W.A Snow

You obviously don't know anything about me although I already know a great deal about you.

For instance, because I live in Georgia, you assume I am a Southerner.

I am actually a New Yorker who grew up in Williamsburg and who, at the age of sixteen, began to learn about the process of thinking itself.

Therefore it is clear that you know nothing about thought process or you would know that thought itself is dependent first on the order and structure of the material brain and that thinking and learning and doing further develop and order the material structure of the brain.

Hence, it is not possible for any "initial discovery/suggestion" to take place except it take place within that structure.

Of course if your brain is the void in the snow anything may seem possible because not much thinking is done in the void.

Thinking, of necessity, is part and parcel and bound to the material universe within which it takes place and of which our brains are part.

j.

How's about you two guys PM-ing (Private Message) each other? Your mini-thread is taking on the appearance of a Perpetual Motion Engine and we've all worked pretty hard here to hide the fact from our OP that such things really do exist.

europium,

Please don't let my "friend" (who's name shall not be mentioned) hear you say that "such things really do exist".

Since I am clearly dealing with someone with inferior intellect /mental issues I think you are correct. I may take it upon myself to PM him/her (or it) and make the peace. Afterall I am sure that I am the more mature person in this "relationship".

We might even turn out to be friends, afterall nothing is impossible

Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

Andy, I think the OP is geniunely trying to understand why perpetual motion is not feasible. My opinion is that the OP is not trying to foist some kind of GTU crap on this forum like so many others have; notably ones like Solomon Azar, bless his heart.

Can we cut this kid some slack?

you dont have to read it

It seems to me that the number one enemy to your application is friction.

Overcome the friction and I think you can do it.

as friction is my enemy, in theory if there was very little friction the engine could work . so if the machine was made and measured by a computer, and the surface was exactly smooth, in theory it could work. now how to do that?

Since the very observation of a particle can actually have an effect on it, that may mean the engine already exists!

That's what I meant by being blind-sided.

If you want to believe something exists that cannot you will fail to take into account all the bits of the matter.

For instance, the observation of a particle necessarily involves the application of energy in some form.

Hence, no perpetual motion engine 'cept in your head.

j.

-Read and try to understand the First and Second laws of Thermodynamics.

First Law in a nutshell says "You can never win."

Second Law in that same nutshell says "You always Lose."

I don't like to say it can't be done, let's just say these laws have not been violated yet. That is why the US patent office requires a working model of a perpetual motion machine not just a video like you saw on You Tube.

what is up with the log in here. I keep getting a new window and this one tells me not logged in, and that message box WTF?

now for another gripe:

A singular source of efficient is not an act of sex. no ups and downs, all arounds, babbling giggles of hoardom,it is not to acheive an orgasm. It is not to feel good in wobbly quivering madness pretending because there is two of something offset to recreate ....

All because alone an infinite balance necessary for true efficient energy is non-existent. Reiterations, add more cores, recycle....

put it all together and it crashes...with babble of wanting to make it good, and not knowing it isn't, pride fed with love, a stupid love from the outside, but never known to be stupid, like a honda.for the ambivelant truth is scary, and we make it two truths pretending, offset or not.one big one small, one is a hero as a result...with a hollow backside and brain to boot, most often.

you want a real engine? go get a boxer with 3 main bearings. As hermaphrodite ameoba'd efficient with infinite as it is going to get.....

I hope you understand. Go get another to decipher, and fall down together....

aahhh, were you a rock in another life?

That sure is alot to digest.

Hold that thought while I roll this keg over to the computer......

......... Ah, that's more like it!

Now, pray continue...

My beer stein is empty…….oops did I say that out loud?

I meant to say is the keg full? ........buddy

Got yours right here as well. Now, let's take it off Pause and get back to Return of the Cretins.

Perpetual motion is impossible, at least here on earth. Even if it were possible, an engine running wouldn't be capable of doing any work. As soon as a load were placed on the engine, all the energy would be absorbed and it would come to a stop.

For perpetual motion to work, power out must be≥ power in.

Build a very heavy pendulum with very good pivot points,
Swing it through a small angle, it will not run for ever.
The more you add complexity the worse it will get.
Say it swings for 2 hours, now try and extract some usefull energy from it, maybe add a magnet and let it swing past a coil connected to a voltmeter ampmeter and an resistor.
You will find that as soon as you connect the circuit the pendulum will slow down much quicker.

This is about the simplest example I can find, you will learn more trying something like this than doodling Ferris wheels with swinging weights and ratchets...yes wev'e all done it.

Trust me, I'm a Cat

Del

Speak for yourself John..umm Cat.

j.

Even at an optical level, if you have two mirrors facing eachother and stand between looking at your multiple images, each image degrades in intensity and the light doesn't bounce back and forth for ever.

Now wouldn't that be cool if it did? You step into the lift and in the mirrored walls you still see the refections of everyone whose ever been there!!!???

Del _{<exit monitor left in search for mirrors>}

It helps if you make the mirrors out of Bob Shaw's Slow Glass. Bose-Einstein Condensates (BECs) are great for this as well so long as nobody touches them.

Alternatively you can make amplified, time-reversed mirrors using four-wave mixing. Carefuly with shiny surfaces, though -- braces, buttons, your watch and so forth -- 'cuz conjugate mirrors like to lase with shiny things and the beam follows you around like my cat.

When do we start?

Good one Del. Very material example of what I was telling him in the abstract about observation.

j.

The nearest you will get to perpetual motion is a HUGE flywheel which won't stop spinning for thousands of years.

We already have one ...

It's the Earth, now you simply have to extract the rotational energy... wind, waves, currents of magma in the core.

Be my guest take all the energy you can handle.

Del

of course the earth, now how come the earth moves roun and round and doesnt slow down? a real perpetual machine, and i was just abut to give up entirely on this thread.

if the earth can spin continous why couldnt a perpetual machine, and the earth has all sorts of things hanging on it, and yet it doesnt slow down. why?

Actually, the Earth is slowing down. In fact this year the Atomic clock will have 1 second added to it to make up for the slowing of the earth's rotation.

Mr Jaypauldini, much research is required to understand how a perpetual motion would work if it could work. reminds me of a wood chuck poem... How much work could a magnet twerk, if a magnet could twerk work.

Enough of that, Fuel is indeed absolete... our technology/electrical demands are soon to surpass our source of fuel, we have no other choice then to find alternatives for fuel. Wind turbines, hydro electric turbines, solar panels, nuclear reaction.

"If" Perpetual motion were feasible, it would indeed mimic a pendulums movement in a fashion. "If" I made one... I would put a magnet at the end of the pendulum, and a large curved magnet, extending along the path of the pendulums arch, set them to attract, and it may swing back and forth neglecting gravity, seeing as magnets can exert force greater then their own mass. and large arc magnet, has millions of points concentrated on the one pole of the swinging magnet. of coarse this magnet would have to be cut and aligned at a precision angle... 12-22 degrees. and lets say for shits and giggles you want to get really in depth with it, angle the large arc so the out side points are a cm closer in diameter, when anything orbits an object, if the orbit shrinks a fraction, it accelerates... centripetal force/ acceleration is a key factor in a device that would defy the laws of physics and thermal dynamics. of coarse... this is only hypothetical "if" I built one, its what i would do, except I might just add two more pendulums on the same central pivot and just make the 3 armatures with magnets on the end spin around endlessly inside a larger magnetic ring. and to create a momentum force... add a second magnet on the pendulums angled for repelling against the larger ring, creating an orbit wich is slightly eliptical, giving acceleration, and the force of the combined magnets greatly over comes the mass of the whole system. now if that were possible... id still have some friction, so id say to hell with friction, and place two large magnetic discs on top and bottom of this 3 armed spinning magnetic contraption, and then you have magnetic levitation, seemingly frictionless, spinning insanely, with a slight wobble. wrap a few copper windings here and there... put the whole thing in a steel box to trap magnetism from escaping, and to quit sucking your screwdriver and miscelanious parts inward (very scary). You then have a buzzing metalic box, with a decent source of electricity. Thermal dynamics can not disprove this, although people who study thermal dynamics can, because they are still cave men who imagine fire and heat as our only form of energy. Hot-Cold= work. Magnet-copper=work stored energy-kinetic energy=work. yes there is heat loss, and some friction loss... but if you have a small magneto system inside the box, that heat loss is sustained INSIDE the box, keeping it nice and toasty, especialy if you had multiple systems inside the box, and one system beeing based on a sterling engine that requires a heat source and a temperature difference. 2 systems powering eachother, the heat from one powering the piston that helps turn the crank.

"If" it were possible to build this, thats what I would do... and i would also have researched everything feasible to increase efficiency of these systems.

Im not sure what category it would be listed under, seeing as it requires an initial input, but very likely to be self sustaining. however, "if" i built one or someone else would, they would want to be very cautious not to give out all the secrets, beeings as it is a profitable business selling the world a means of transportation, electricity, heat, water, industry, technology...

I just read a bunch of negative slams toward perpetual motion and you Jaypauldini seemed to need some encouragement. like edison said, You have not failed, you just found 10,000 ways it cant be done.

The earth is a magnet spinning and hurtling through space, it can be done, we are on one... lets make a smaller version.

thank you for that, real indepth knowledge nice to know,i ambeginning to come round to the idea that it isnt possible. and maybe electric engines or hydrogen cell engines maybe the future, which is good, as they dont pollute as far as i know, and they have few moving parts, so they would be efficient (as long as that part wasnt the weakest link). and they are quiet, so no noise pollution. they had one on topgea rand it looked quite good.

and itis a bit like i was questioning, in that it runs without fuel , as such, at least renewable fuel.

but now i ask will we run out of water, becasue we have put it all in the engines.?

problems problems

thaks again for some positive words

jay

Great. Another Visitor From The Fringe.

Funny how some people cannot distinguish Force from Energy. Some simply can't, and some simply won't.

Of the six billion people on this planet, you'd think somebody would have already thought of your 'pendulum' gizmo by now -- even built several prototypes -- given that pendulums, magnets, coils and a thorough aversion to a solid education are so commonplace.

So which are you? A Can't? Or a Won't?

(Jay: Keep that chin up. You may be misled yet. )

look up the "Sterling Engine" on Youtube.

Why? Is it a PerpMo engine?

no, its a thermal accoustic engine, runs off of heat, or a temp difference of 7 degrees... but it can be made into a perpetual engine, some have blades and use a bit of wind, others run off solar power, others yet run on the heat in your hand. Mine runs off of magnets, a gentlemen in an earlyer post tried to discredit me because he thinks i dont understand the difference between force and energy, when in fact no one knows it quite as well as I do.

Magnetism travels as an energy at the speed of light, with electrons, wich have mass, wich are used to create electricity. objects of mass can exert force, and magnets have negative and positive ends that exert force using a stored energy that slowly transfers over time into kinetic energy. Everytime you repel a magnet with another magnet a force is created, and movement wich is transferred into electricity.

electricity is a heat source, wich means magnets are a heat source because they create electricity. This is all electro magnetism 101, but what im getting at is this

I Use magnets as a heat source to power sterling engines, wich becomes a perpetual motion engine. never stopping until the magnet loses its magnetism in 2000 years, or when there becomes thermal equilibreum, wich only happens if there is a crack in the piston. Once I create a large version I will post it and show you, and the skeptics can bite their tongue.

"... an earlyer post tried to discredit me because hethinks i dont understand the difference between force and energy, when in fact no one knows it quite as well as I do."

---

How do you know that? Did you take a poll?

yes i did, the poll was called, Who has successfully built an over unity device. seeing as I havent seen anyone else do it, obviously they all fall short.

Obviously?

You must be a billionaire by now. Seeing how the rest of the scientific community can't seem to build an over-unity device, which produces more energy than it consumes, using no external power source.

"This is all electro magnetism 101..."

Well, then, let's do start with Electromagnetism 101:

Can a magnet and a coil which are stationary with respect to each other create electricity?

no, there has to be movement, technicaly a magnetic field has moving electrons in it, but there has to be an alternating field. you cant just put a magnet in front of copper and expect electricity.

I see now my previous comment seemed a bit harsh, it was in jest, i am no expert, i just merely discovered something no one has published yet. but it is a remarkable discovery, I invite you to check it out if your ever in my neck of the woods

"...technicaly a magnetic field has moving electrons in it..."

Indeed. What if the space contained not electrons, but protons? What kind of experiment could you devise to show this?

What would you conclude if your experiment showed that the space contained a magnetic field and nothing else?

What fills the space surrounding a moving electron?

no one knows it quite as well as I do.

Thats a bold statement. I think you might be able to benefit from a class in "humility 101".

wich becomes a perpetual motion engine. never stopping until the magnet loses its magnetism in 2000 years. Once I create a large version I will post it and show you, and the skeptics can bite their tongue.

Wow! I would think that once you create a large version you should get the Nobel prize, and end the worlds dependence on non-renewable resources. 2000 years is a heck of a long time...

(I'm placing my tongue between my teeth, i hope i don't have to wait long)

-its all in good fun

No, well at least not under the current laws of physics and thermodynamics.

An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by outside forces, like friction from drag or other sources. Also, you can't get more energy out of a system than you put into it.

If you happen to figure out a way to do it you're going to be very very rich.

yes it was a bold statement, i should have worded it a little more carefully, I dont get humiliated, but i do reckognize when I make an ass of myself, and especialy at the expense of others at this of which i appologize...

Now as for over unity, I think you mis-interpreted, i might be mistaken, but i think we were talking perpetual motion engine, not over unity...

A magnet has stored potential energy, that is slowly released into kinetic energy at the speed of light. Magnetism. I feel like a broken record... its not over unity, its really technicaly not even close to 100% efficient, not in a literal sense the way you calculate efficiency of an input to an output...

Take a 1 square inch neo magnet... it has a magnetic attraction of say 90 lbs. this is its magnetism beeing released continuously each second or even faster then that. say it does this for only an hour, very short life span. wich means over all it will release 324,000 lbs of magnetic flux in that hour. we harness the power of this magnet in a device, to create electricity, say its hooked up to a small generator that only requires 50 lbs of resistance to keep rotating each second. thats 180,000 lbs used up in that hour, not including friction and gravity... wich gives you 144,000 lbs of force/ energy that is un-used, wich gives you a 55% efficiency. but my good friends, there are 2 sides of every magnet... if you are desperate for MORE energy, you re-configure the device to harness both sides of the magnet. my math is a little off im sure, but I hope you understand the gist of this. it is not over unity, but it is perpetual in comparison to gasoline motors seeing as a 1 inch block supplies energy for a very long time. so no, technicaly it is impossible to achieve more out then in, magnets are just a more efficient (Heat) source, similar to comparing a lemon battery to a car battery, one has a much larger stored potential energy, less heat loss, and is far more easy to control with less variables.

does this make sense to anyone?

Dear Mr. Cashman,

Magnets do not 'release' magnetic flux, as if this were some form of energy that flowed out of the magnet to somewhere else. Your assertions such as, "it has a magnetic attraction of say 90 lbs. this is its magnetism beeing released continuously each second or even faster then that..." offer incontrovertible proof that you make no distinction between force ("90 lbs.") and energy. They're different. Way different. And you don't understand the difference. You might as well claim a 90-pound rock dissipates energy by just sitting there. It, too, exerts a force of 90 lbs.

This is not a personal attack, Mr. Cashman, in spite of its appearing so. I am not discrediting you. You've done that work yourself. Worse, your lack of humility merely amplifies the overall effect that you clearly do not understand the subject of which you speak.

And when challenged, you back-pedal. In one post you claim to understand force and energy better than most (gimme a break!); in the next you back-pedal and call this a 'joke.' I'll say one thing, Mr. Cashman: Your duplicity is nothing short of amazing.

Keep one thing in mind when visiting this forum: we are not fools. Represented on this forum are literally man-centuries of solid engineering experience, much of it learned the hard way. You know, Experience? Some of our members are pushing the cutting edge of energy technology even as I write this and if you think you're gonna pull the wool over their eyes, think again.

You may schnooker the likes of Mr. Jaypauldini, but at least he demonstrates an honest search for answers. For that I highly commend him. Better to be a struggling student than a consummate fool who believes his own fantasies.

Now here's where I get real strident, Mr. Cashman: I don't willingly tolerate fools. Especially those of your stripe. Either get an education, like Mr. Jaypauldini is trying to do -- however informally -- or Get Lost.

Pick one.

-e

What about the Earth.

It's in perpetual motion all the time. What fuel is it burning to do it?

If it stops motion then we all die.

its in orbit around the sun, if you look at it on two different levels, as a closed system and an open system. the closed system is molten rock compressed to the point that it revolves inside a spherical casing of rock and water, wich i think is what gives it gravity, antimatter/ energy radiating out like a magnetic force from a fusion in the center, same principle as a tesla coil, except liquid rock instead of plasma, our atmosphere is the static section outside the tesla coil. this is all rediculous, but i like the theory.

but the open system is the sun is a giant stator, the earth is a small magnetic roller, its orbit is just like a roller going around a stator, it revolves and rotates at the same time, the orbit is eliptical giving acceleration wich keeps us from plumeting into the sun.

anyone else have more to add? or to contradict me with the real facts

Dude, your thinking, and I like that.

But the Earth IS slowing down, in fact, they're adding a second to the year, this Dec 31 to compensate for it.

There's nothing wrong with throwing idea's around. This forum is, after all, about using our minds. That's what we do here. It's all about sharing idea's, it's what we all call fun. For me anyway, it sure beats watching some mindless TV sitcom.

Frankly, I think the laws of physics will bite you in the ass in the end, but it was well thought out, and presented well. Don't stop thinking and posting because you fear what other people might think. If you look at my many posts, I don't get into many arguments. I'm here because I enjoy it, and I hope you're here for the same reason.

I do however, Mr Cashman give you CPTP rating of 475.

Mr. Cashman writes: "...or to contradict me with the real facts."

Do you customarily visit forums like this one to be contradicted "with real facts?" Or is this another one of your back-pedaling "jokes?"