Thread: New Kid on the Block...

Hi folks,

I'm Dr. R. Charbonneau. My Ph.D. is in astrophysics. I started with a BScME from U. of Maryland thru USAFES. For the army I kept helicopters flying. Once back in the USA I found myself inspecting a nuclear powerplant prior to its coming online and traveled a bit as a one man research team.
The astrophysics began intrinsically back in high school, still I began externsive independent study in the field in the mid-seventies. For quite a few years I questioned the tokamak studies for sustained fusion because of problems that emerge in the equation of state. From this question arose similar questions about sustained fusion in a star and for several years I mulled over other possible models for the G2 stellar interior and mechanics.
The SL9 impacts in 1994 were preceded by speculations that the impacts could turn Jupiter into a second star. I felt this was absurd because Jupiter, even though it has layers of both molecular and metalic hydrogen, did not sport the presence of photospheric materials sufficient to contain such an ignition. That feeling was correct. Even with Voyager taking in much of the events of SL9, we still were unable to detect the results of fusion as the fragments tunnelled into the Jovian atmosphere. No helium.

The thoughts of it all did eventually amalgamate into a concept of a star that does not burn with sustained fusion, but instead by inertial fusion impulses and, unlike the "iron sun" theory, suggested that just beneath the convection zone, resides a cooler region of solidified compounds that work as an adiabatic layer and a transmutive layer that converted deuterium in the convection zone, to tritium (or even more dense isotopes) that would generate fusion through inertia as it plummets into the deeper gravitational radii of the core. This was independent of the SOHO data collected prior to 1997, when the SOHO satelite was found again and the new proposal for future SOHO funding was being written.

In 2006, the NASA channel aired a broadcast about SOHO that depicted this second solid layer so precisely that the illustration I sent NASA in 1999, about the layer, could have been cut & pasted within the vignette used to mask out the corona and chromospheric layers.

Shortly after seeing the broadcast, I was able to find references to it at the SOHO site, but now, just like the White House did with the evidence of global warming, references to the broadcast are inaccessible. I do understand why, though. The model I depicted to NASA explained the solar neutrino shortage by depicting a star with much more fluff than fuel. That depiction was made before SOHO made the many temperature readings and elemental presence readings in solar flares. The convection zone may still harbor all the star's fuel, but not as little as I first calculated.

I'm still working on all this, but there are quite a few other projects I have in the fire at the moment. Mostly I'm running the numbers on the microgravity that exists between Oort Spheres and whether the orbital resonance involving comets in one sphere can affect the resonance in another. This same work involves whether there are negative energy and negative mass areas, so wormholes, that would exist in these areas as an illustration of the Casimir Effect. If so then, yes, one star can affect the fields within another, but how far?

Beyond the science:
I wield a mean axe... as in Stratocaster, or so I'm told. Some of my work is in murals and signage, from where I've earned most of my research money over the past twenty years. I can't stand to sit and watch "the game." I feel sports has overshadowed science for too many years and the world is behind in what could have been greater exploration of space and the seas because of that overshadowing.

I was taught carpentry by my father, a master carpenter who invented the "fold up" cabinet for EV many years ago. Although I make my living as a scientist, I still swing the framing and fine carpentry hammers and love architecture.

'Nuff for now.

Dr. C.

Hello Doctor, welcome to the forum. You have a lot of experience in science so it seems, more than most here. There aren't many astrophysicists here so I for one am glad that we have a new valuable member of the forum.

Enjoy your stay .

Same here! Thanks for that detailed introduction. It is evident that we have gained a valuable new member and I for one am looking forward to your contributions. Enjoy your stay!

Greetings Renaissance Person. May we see some of your murals?

A real scientist!

What? You're kidding me...(speechless, pause)...

About bladdy time!

Welcome DrCWho

You have a very interesting resume there

I hope i won't annoy you too much :?

Welcome aboard, i hope your stay is a long one. I also hope that i can understand a little of what you write about as i'm sure a lot of it is going to go right over the top of my head. Just out of interest, what do you think of the show on the History channel, "The Universe"?

He still has yet to make his second post. If he doesn't post soon I'm betting he's gone for good.

Was it something i said?

Hi folks!,
Thank you for the warm welcome. I'm a real busy dude, so if it takes a bit of time for me to reply, you can safely assume I'm in the running. Plus, I have a virus in my home machine that destroyed my modem drivers and it's an old HP, so the drivers aren't available anymore. Specifically that means I go online at the public library for a bit till I get a new machine.

Seeing the murals? I'll see what I can do to port some pics in here. I do most of my site work in MSN, so I could send people there as well as converse here. I don't want to get myself accused of trolling, so Ill ask permission. Feel free to email me with queries.

Is there a good site where I can get an avatar? I notice most of you have some... uhm... fascinating graphics. :-D

Over peoples' heads? If you have trouble understanding something, just ask. I'm an old hippy at heart and that means my nose isn't up in the air (or up anyone's pygium either... )

Perhaps someone can be my "spirit guide" here. Where do we need some input the most? It's hard to believe with all the topics and subdivisions, there aren't any other Ph.D.'s in here. Sometimes some of those people are so snooty that it becomes aggravating.

Do we enjoy conversing about time and relative dimensions in space at this site?

Thanks again for the welcome,

Dr. CWho

Do we enjoy conversing about time and relative dimensions in space at this site?

Ah! I got that: TARDIS -> Dr Who ->clever. Yes we do enjoy that topic, also talking about dimensionally transindentality :wink: . I’m guessing you’ll be addressing a lot of black hole questions as well as refuting some “theories”.

Cool! Sounds like we're all off to a good start.

I made some additional experiments on a concept I have for generating power that I call a hydrostatic generator. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt it will work now.

The generator rethinks hydroelectric power. Instead of moving the coils through the magnets' fields, it moves the magnets, and their fields, through the coils. The one concern I had was whether the process might fail from diamagnetic adhesion (or suspension if you prefer). This is the same effect that allows us to suspend a live object in the center of a magnetic trap. (put the keywords "Floating Frogs" in a search engine...) The same effect could have potentially caused the magnets to adhere to the field as they would be producing it within the coils, but, as I truly expected, it didn't.

The system has some engineering to be worked out now, but it works like this: A buoy with a ceramic magnet encased within it rises through the center of a column of water that contains the coils. At the top the buoy falls over the open top and down a second column that has coils, but no water, so free fall velocity generates more power on the way down. The method I have for returning the buoys to the ascending tower is proprietary, so I won't relate that, but this we could consider to be the abstract of the device. Operation of the mechanical parts that help the buoy traverse from one column to the next will only require 5% of the device's output. 90% can go into the grid and as of now it appears this will be the type of system someone can have installed in their back yard and will produce more power than they will need for the home, so a reversing meter means the power grid MUST buy the extra current.

How do you like that?

Dr. CWho

Well doctor.

1. I like the sound of your ideas regarding the neutrino shortage. At least it sounds as though you know your stuff. We also get very off-the-wall ideas in this forum, though the trouble with many is the lack of depth of scientific knowledge to back these up.

2. Your hydrostatic generator sounds suspiciously like a perpetual motion device - I hope you don't discover that the return device (your proprietory abstract) actually takes 105% and not 5% of the device's output. On the other hand, if the device is, say, tidally related/operated, then all the best with that - you may help solve the world's fuel crisis!

Welcome, in any and all cases.

shanks

You have a PhD in physics, and you think you have invented a perpetual motion machine? I find that very unlikely.

Welcome to the forum mate, im not a very big physics guy but im sure i'll see ya round [/u]

Seems odd: I thought I posted a reference to Harold's post... probably just a rhetorical rebuttal...


Certainly hope none of you caught that nasty flu that's been going around... 's no fun...



I thought I'd mentioned this is not pertpetual motion. If it were I'd care less about propriety. Perpetual motion cannot be patented.

I have run some additional tests and it's time to build a prototype.

I've been looking for similar patented devices and can't find one. It seems so amazing that this hasn't been tried before. I didn't think there was anything that hadn't been done before.

Originally Posted by DrCWho

I thought I'd mentioned this is not pertpetual motion. If it were I'd care less about propriety. Perpetual motion cannot be patented.

Let's see. Your device consists of a float that rises to the top of a column of water, generating electricity on the way up. It then falls back down, generating more electricity. By a proprietary method, you return the float into the water column using only 5 percent of the power generated. The remainder is free electricity you sell to the power company. It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... It's a duck.

Well, Harold,

At least you made the effort to comment on the device concept.

I take it that if I hurry up and make a thousand posts in here, I'll be a forum Ph.D. too...

Perhaps 20/20 sight behind the veil of cynicism is easier than making worthwhile conversation from the angle of physics. Perhaps you don't know enough about physics to make a constructive comment about, e.g., the electromagnetic induction vs. free-fall potential E and its end velocity (not terminal velocity) as mass (m) that is all of .5kg, so its E(sub)K as it exits a 3m descending column into the recovery device.

Let's suppose we're using a Red Hat solenoid valve to operate a dual acting air cylinder via a tank of compressed air. With the valve and the compressor keeping the tank topped off, how much kwh will we use in that alone?

Let's suppose my coils are suited to a 12 cm x 6 cm ceramic magnet disk. The effective field should be aproximately 2cm in depth x 7cm in height. If the magnet ascends at 36cm per second and the coils are 2 cm deep of constructive resonant design, then how much total EMF will be produced if the coils are 18cm apart along the entire 3m ascending column?

At freefall velocity, how much EMF will be developed total in a similar descending column?

Is the spacing between the coils sufficient to eliminate resistance from the water (or perhaps antifreeze)? I used Poisseule's Rule to form my own estimates.

There is no "free lunch" here. It's lunch on Mother Earth and Mother Nature. Moms are nice like that at times...

Dr. CWho

Doc, I will freely admit that I am the possessor of a lowly BS degree in real life. I never heard of Poisseule's Rule and I'm too lazy to check on the other stuff. But that's the beauty of knowing a few simple laws of physics. You can look at a scheme like this and tell right away it's not going to work. Since you have not explained the source of energy, it still looks like perpetual motion to me.

Here's your problem... you say that the magnetic foat would have to fall down an open side, and than float up another side using the water to gain potential energy.

Let's suppose that you used gravity to move the float from one side to another. Start with the float on the side that has the watter. The float floats up, and falls down the other side, creating energy. It than rolls down a ramp and is inserted back into the watter where it can float up. How are you going to keep both sides of watter at different levels? Once a hole is opened to let the float into the side with the watter, bot sides will equalize. Now you will have to overcome the boyancy of the float in order to bring it to a spot where it can float up. THIS will use more energy than you can generate by the rising and falling actions.

By a proprietary method,

You don't have a proper proprietary method. I hope you don't waste your money making this, just to learn that the experiment failed because of a sad little leak.

Once again, as Harold explained (I don't remember the last time he commented when he didn't know what he was talking about) you don't have a source of energy. elementary physics... "conservation of energy: energy cannot be created or destroyed" in other words, you would need a source. Gravity is not a viable source. Neither is boyancy.

Doc; I also welcome you to this forum, as an occasional poster. BUT, I also am curious of your said qualifications. Bright, no question, brighter than me- most are and your comments will be followed by several.

My question came when you said, Shoemaker's Comets when impacting Jupiter, some said could ignite a second system star. To my knowledge, no one publicly said this or if they did, no one agreed with the theory.
Many reasons...to many to mention, to why not.

Your past history on forum activity is also quite short. I am assuming you are or where from Anderson, Indiana and not a Chicago land DDS...

Again, welcome.

Originally Posted by jackson33

My question came when you said, Shoemaker's Comets when impacting Jupiter, some said could ignite a second system star. To my knowledge, no one publicly said this or if they did, no one agreed with the theory.
Many reasons...to many to mention, to why not.

To my knowledge, the only way Jupiter could become a star and begin fusion is to gain mass. The mass gain from a comet would not nearly be enough in my estimation.

Cheers

I have the "little hole" problem solved. I'm actually happy to see that this tends to form a block in the minds of most who read it. Also I believe I stated E(sub)potential as an energy source creating kinetic energy in the descent. The ascent is, put another way, buoyancy thrust.

It's normal for the first step of invention review to read "It'll never work!"

The last step is "I always knew it had potential!"

Waste money? Everything I've tested thus far has been with experimenter gear off my shelf. All tests have been successful.
Some of you guys sound like some reviewers I encountered at the NIH who had no concept of a free-floating actuator, even though I illustrated it beyond any doubt describing how it works. If one holds a hand drill, he holds a free-floating actuator. A helicopter is a classic example of the same. These reviewers couldn't even grasp the concept of a Chinese windlass.

Regarding SL9, I mentioned what was on the news. Could have been the Christian Broadcasting Network, too. It's been a long time since.

The point was I disagreed with that possibility for similar reasons as you stated, Jackson33. The results confirmed that, still we learned a lot about both comets and impacts from that amazing show. I took what we learned and formed a new theory about stellar fusion from it.


Harold,
I don't know what to tell you, nor do I really have time to find just the right words to get by your seeming mental block over the concept. You actually sound more like a lawyer chasing Mother Nature's ambulance.

Take care.

Originally Posted by DrCWho

Also I believe I stated E(sub)potential as an energy source creating kinetic energy in the descent.

Is that anything like zero point energy? Good luck with your invention. Keep us posted.

william; The smallest 'star like' object, active or as in our star and known; Is OGLE-TR 1226, which is the smaller of a binary star system. Its only about 16% larger than Jupiter. There are several complex theory for what causes or in some cases does NOT ignite matter into a star, for long periods, allowing giants etc.(Fusion). Most feel this could only happen during formation.

Doc; You argued with an aired program? Fine..What you say on what was learned is absolutely correct, while this comet fragmented and plunged into Jupiter. I assume you learned what could not ignite a relatively old mass, long cooled by a relatively tiny particle from space.

Since a star is basically a controlled fusion, any idea how to do this would be beneficial to our energy problems. Is this where your coming from...

I'm just reiterating one question... where is the energy for your machine coming from again?

Jackson33,

We don't know 1005 that fusion did not occur deep in the convection zones and the shear zone of the Jovian atmosphere. We did not read as much Helium as would be expected if fusion was higher up. We did not read He4.

You may wish to look into "inertial" fusion. It is the hope for fusion dynamics in the near future.

The Project SOHO proposal from 1997 was finally published to the site and it says very blatantly that the sun turns as a solid sphere beneath the convection zone. The cooler area, in that region, is called the "shear zone." The shear zone is what was televised on the NASA channel in 2006 as being solid. I'm imagining there's some controversy about it now, so the data has been pulled, just like with global warming.

Shaderwolf,
Ask yourself what propels a bubble to the surface of a body of water? In the case of my invention, surface tension doesn't come into play, but you may wish to do the dishes tonight and observe the soap bubbles. It might be best described as pressure differential thrust, in the descent it is mearly the translation of potential energy into kinetic energy.

Harold,

Zero energy is something entirely different that deals with singularities. What I still tend to be baffled by is seemingly nobody has tried this before.

I'll keep all posted. Right now I'm working with the city I'm in for some help with the projects I have and I'm getting it. (It's about time. Took a new administration to get things going right...) I've made more tests also and now I'm finding I can scale down a demo to the point where I can drop the buoy in the descending column and still run the stopwatch at the "buoy exchanger" for lack of a better current term to describe this proprietary process.
The one space I'm getting is glassed in on all sides. I plan to make the area into into a clean room where I can do surface mount electronics technology and grow rotovibrios cultures on the other side. Clean rooms are handy if you ever want to work on a hard drive. The rotovibrios is a Sargaso Seaweed type that I want to find a way to cultivate inland for producing purples and reds in my color kitchen. The chemistry is the tougher thing to get the city to bless in my lab, but I think I can convince them it's safe.

You said you are an engineer? I started out as an engineer. I began studying astrophysics in 1978. When I was 17 I was developing a theory of electromagnetic pulse propulsion. I abandoned it in the mid seventies then began looking at the time-space nature of stars to understand more about gravity. Even to date we still have no way to prove whether gravity pulls or pushes us to the ground. All we can do is measure what it does. If we view gravity as being caused by a inbound stream of particles heading for a matrix of singularities, gravity can be viewed as a push and some inconsistencies of quantum dynamics are explained. That's a more recent concept I've been working out ion the blackboard.

In my studies of fusion, in stars or in tokamaks, ther has always been a major conflict with the Van der Waals equation of state. On a quantum level this comes into play as an adiabatic condition that prohibits the exchange of energy outside of the outermost electron orbits. The greater the compression, the stronger are the steric forces on the atom and against themselves. Great heat forces overcome the steric forces but they always recover as time enters the equation again.

I'm out of time here today, but I'll be in town more with the city project and all, so I should be able to check in more often.

Thanks for the well wishing. Let's all hope this produces...

Dr. CWho

Originally Posted by DrCWho

Shaderwolf,
Ask yourself what propels a bubble to the surface of a body of water? In the case of my invention, surface tension doesn't come into play, but you may wish to do the dishes tonight and observe the soap bubbles. It might be best described as pressure differential thrust, in the descent it is mearly the translation of potential energy into kinetic energy.

You're not saying that that is your energy source are you?[

Thanks for the well wishing. Let's all hope this produces...

Dr. CWho

I'm not holding my breath.

Doc; You may be mixing a couple stories...Patrick Cassen and D S Woolum wrote the book 'Origin Of The Solar System in 1996 or so, about the time the SOHO was en-route. Both are/were with NASA- Ames Research Center. If I remember correctly they inferred the solar core could be a solid (molten) mass, though minimal, caused during formation. The actual information received, however would not validate those possibilities.

Jackson33,
No mixing. What I discovered was independent of SOHO. Pure math that agrees with quantum physics that allows quarks to borrow energy from hadrons during recombination in collisions. The equation of state also allows for momentary borrowing, but quickly recovers to the stable state.

The pinch effect won't work for very long, as we have found out over the years. Inertial impulses in succession would deliver the amount of energy we actually detect.


Dr. CWho

DrCWho: Are you expecting to build a >100% efficiency generator? If so there is no such thing as "free energy"...some basic thermodynamics tells us that.

The contraption you have described basically already exists as types of hydropower generators i.e. tidal and wave generators. The input energy is of course provided by the flow of water which in turn originates from lunar gravity, and the wind. I'm not entirely sure what your proposed method of energy input to the system will be, and hence why your machine is at all any different from what already exists.

Originally Posted by bit4bit

DrCWho: Are you expecting to build a >100% efficiency generator? If so there is no such thing as "free energy"...some basic thermodynamics tells us that.

The contraption you have described basically already exists as types of hydropower generators i.e. tidal and wave generators. The input energy is of course provided by the flow of water which in turn originates from lunar gravity, and the wind. I'm not entirely sure what your proposed method of energy input to the system will be, and hence why your machine is at all any different from what already exists.

Thermodynamics if I recall had to have another law added to it if I assume correctly, and it also relies on a constant entropy of time, there is a flaw right there. Instead of saying 'this prohibits this and that' say; well it could be possible as this particular area is weak and can vary with a variable. All current theories on everything are not 100% correct, and tech. will improve over time, by closing our minds with 'this won't work' instead of 'current research suggests this won't work' will slow down aour progress. Only science can evolve if people think outside of the box. So good luck Dr. with your venture .

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Thermodynamics if I recall had to have another law added to it if I assume correctly, and it also relies on a constant entropy of time, there is a flaw right there. Instead of saying 'this prohibits this and that' say; well it could be possible as this particular area is weak and can vary with a variable. All current theories on everything are not 100% correct, and tech. will improve over time, by closing our minds with 'this won't work' instead of 'current research suggests this won't work' will slow down aour progress. Only science can evolve if people think outside of the box. So good luck Dr. with your venture .

Sure, it's only a law of physics, and we can change those like we change our socks. Go ahead and go for it.

Bit4bit,
No. This is void of the need for tidal/wave action. I'm certain the lunar gravity will have some effect, but should not interrupt it's cycle.

The machine relies on two effects: Buoyancy for the buoys' journey up to the top where it then has potential energy, then free-fall for the journey to the "processor valve;" The proprietary return mechanism that I just changed again to get rid of the need for energy from the coils.

I'm amazed that this is so difficult for people to grasp, but words are clumsy...


Dr. C.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Sure, it's only a law of physics, and we can change those like we change our socks. Go ahead and go for it.

The laws of physics break down to some extent in a black hole, thats good enough for me.

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Thermodynamics if I recall had to have another law added to it if I assume correctly, and it also relies on a constant entropy of time, there is a flaw right there. Instead of saying 'this prohibits this and that' say; well it could be possible as this particular area is weak and can vary with a variable. All current theories on everything are not 100% correct, and tech. will improve over time, by closing our minds with 'this won't work' instead of 'current research suggests this won't work' will slow down aour progress. Only science can evolve if people think outside of the box. So good luck Dr. with your venture .

It's not about having an open mind with physics...in fact to a greater extent you need to be closed minded. Imagination and creative innovation are great, but they mean nothing whatsoever if you are fundamentally incapable of adhering to proven laws of physics and mathematics.....In such a case you are living in cloud cuckoo land!

Entropy is irrelevant here. We need to consider energy...more imporatantly the conservation of it!....this is one of the most fundamental statements in physics!!!

Sure, it's only a law of physics, and we can change those like we change our socks. Go ahead and go for it.

My thoughts exactly. Harold, ever seen the "free energy motor"?

Bit4bit,
No. This is void of the need for tidal/wave action. I'm certain the lunar gravity will have some effect, but should not interrupt it's cycle.

The machine relies on two effects: Buoyancy for the buoys' journey up to the top where it then has potential energy, then free-fall for the journey to the "processor valve;" The proprietary return mechanism that I just changed again to get rid of the need for energy from the coils.

I'm amazed that this is so difficult for people to grasp, but words are clumsy...


Dr. C.

I'm wondering if you realize the affect of energy losses in physical systems?

It sounds as though you're saying that that the water in the system initially has no energy of its own: "This is void of the need for tidal/wave action". In such a case I'll go one further and say that the water is initially stationary? I'll also assume that both shafts are partially submerged in the water. This means that the level of the water in each tube is identical. We know this form hydroststic theory, and (unquestionably) observation.

For the magnet to be in free fall, the upper section of the pipe must be open (hence "partially submerged")...particularly if it is bouyant.

Suppossing the magnet starts it journey at the top of the first tube. Its potential energy is given by E_p=mgh. In an ideal situation, the kinetic energy it has at the bottom of the shaft is equal to the initial potential energy: (because energy MUST be conserved)

E_p=E_k
mgh=(1/2)mv²

However, on its way down it will lose enrgy due to eddy current braking, air resistance, and friction against the sides of the shaft. (if the shaft is sealed as a kind of air-tight setup, the latter two will be more significant too). It will also impart some impulse to the fluid when it makes contact at the bottom. The energy transferred to the fluid here is a shockwave that is distributed throughout the fluid....not the kind of situation where energy is easily conrolled at all... if properly predicted for that matter! In other words you will have a big loss of energy here too....theres probably some I haven't even mentioned. Taking into account the losses:

E_p - E_losses=E_k

...see 'heat engine'. These losses are very real and cannot be ignored. Now you have to raise the magnet back to the original height of the tube. singe the height hasn't changed, nor the mass, nor g, the energy required to lift it back up is equal to the original potential energy, mgh....but since some of this (probably alot) has been lost, you need to put energy back into the sytem to do it!

Talk about perpetual motion machines and >100% efficiency generators is nonsensical, since energy MUST be conserved, and you will ALWAYS have losses. These are very basic laws of physics.

The laws of physics break down to some extent in a black hole, thats good enough for me.

What have black holes got to do with this?? this is classical mechanics.

Check this out. The last invention on the page - it looks like somebody already invented Doc's machine.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum...us/serious.htm

Some laws can be bent and others can be broken. Look I ahere to some rules, I accept light travels at a constant speed in a vaccum, I accept thermodynamics, I accept cosmology, Planck's constant, everything. What I do is say that these can be expanded upon. Newtons gravity was able to be explained more, as Einsteins will also. That explanation will come for the GUT. I believe that some laws we have now are fully logical, apporxomate and true, however it does not mean that they are flawless theories and laws that can exist anywhere and everywhere at any one time. In other words, they can be made better. I quest not to break the rules, but to bend them so we can understand the universe better. If a law that currently exists prohibits my theory and I clearly notice it, I'll exaust all methods before I hit a brick wall. You guys stick to the box, and me and the good Doc here will leave it. Its personality, some people are raised in different ways, so we have a different approach to science.

When the time comes and I can afford it, I will learn as much physics as possible, then use it to think outside of the box. Each law that exists is a part of the walls of the box, if you believe all laws cannot be broken, you cannot leave the box. I like to keep the lid off the box. If you don't like it, you know what to do.

425, I'm not afraid to think outside the box if thats what you're saying...in fact my imagination is very active thank you. You just simply can't argue with facts like conservation of energy....and if you can then the world would surely beat a path to your doorstep...but you'd better be able to back it up!!!

I'm simply giving the doc some constructive criticism... it won't work. He can go ahead and continue with it for all I care, but it's worth letting him know there's a fundamental flaw with the idea.

If a law that currently exists prohibits my theory and I clearly notice it, I'll exaust all methods before I hit a brick wall

Well it's a good job me and Harold are here to help you realize the brick wall of energy conservation.

when I can afford it, I will learn as much physics as possible

90% of the physics I've learned has been on the internet and from 50p book loans at the library....unfortunately that doesn't mean shit when you want a job, so I'm going into an engineering degree next year to get my piece of paper, and earn a nice wage....put some of that creative innovation to the test too. If all you want to do is learn physics, exhaust the free resources at your disposal, and learn in your spare time. Even get a quiet little job somewhere like Einstein and think about it all day long. :wink:

If you don't like it, you know what to do.

What?

Originally Posted by bit4bit

425, I'm not afraid to think outside the box

What's this damn box you all keep going on about?

Originally Posted by bit4bit

.but you'd better be able to back it up!!!

Ooh, fight fight??

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You have a PhD in physics, and you think you have invented a perpetual motion machine? I find that very unlikely.

well i think a perpetual motion machine is very plasable useing the subastanceses known as super conducters which exist at extream cold enviorments a super conducting ring in which an electric current can flow indefinitely once started.

There is a difference between perpetual motion, which apparently does occur in superconductors, and a perpetual motion machine. A machine is a device for doing work. If you manage to make the current do work, you immediately reduce the energy stored in the current, and if you continue to extract energy, eventually you reduce the energy to zero and the current will stop flowing.

your right i made a boo boo but most likey the only possable way man kind will ever achive a perpetual motion machine is useing super conducters

No, superconductors have nothing to do with it. They don't get you around the second law.

Superconductors have zero resistance, and can indeed conduct a finite current indefinately, but I wouldn't really say that it's a perpetual motion machine, as Bunbury says. As soon as you introduce a resistive load, and try to get the current to perform any work, then you are taking energy out of the system, which means that the current will reduce to zero, and energy is conserved.

If you consider the superconductor on its own as a closed system, then I suppose you could consider the continuous flow of charge to be "perpetual motion", but nonetheless, no energy conservation laws are being broken because although no energy is being transferred into or out of the system, none is being created or destroyed.

With mechanical systems, it would be impossible even to get a similar scenario to this (perpetual motin), where the machine indefinately moves without any energy input...so to have this scenario, AND to have the machine create its own energy (e.g. electrical) on top of it, would clearly not be possible.

Whoa! I'm out for a day and look what happens...


To all,

Once again, this is NOT perpetual motion, nor do I claim such. Even the superconductor only qualifies while the material is close to 4degK. How do we keep it that cold, so perpetual motion is not even in that scene unless there is success in high temp supers.

I appreciate Harold finding the "bubble" machine. Not even close, except my design also incorporates a "magic valve" that everyone will have to wait for the patent illustrations after patenting. :wink: My design is much simpler...



Bit4Bit,
Thanks for the recap. I've already done the math on losses. The one that concerned me most involved Lentz's Law and the effects it governs. Yes I'm aware of eddy currents, both in the coils and in the fluid. I've compensated for that in the design. The basic physics is likely more educational to others in the group, than a rebuttal, still it tells me that, as 425 implied, you aren't thinking outside the box of what is considered to be "known." It's becoming a good discussion of physics and I certainly welcome the challenges to why it should work.

The "magic valve" can be achieved in more than one method, but I recently re-thought that part and (in accordance with quantitative observations involved in the research) have a different design that uses no electric energy the device would produce to operate it. It will not be 100% efficient. It will require a small boost at the top of the ascending column to transfer the buoys to the descending column. Although heat sinks and perhaps a small pool of water can reduce the effect of the irreversible work that becomes heat, it may require some cooling and some low power pumps to scavange over spill in the bottom of the descending column. The descending column is open and air filled. The "magic valve" (proprietary "valve") prevents the fluid that fills the ascending column from backflow into the ascending column.

The biggest question I have will only show up in practical application and that involves how much power I really get from the device. It may be that the pumps and electronics and the "kicker" at the top will take up 25 - 50% of the output, however I seriously doubt it will total more than 5-10% losses.

I've been doing thought experiments on this for over 3 years now, so you folks are just being introduced to the concept and I imagine it would take an outsider to the vision more than that for "the lightbulb to glow" in your own genius areas.

Have fun thinking about this, but I recommend deleting the term perpetual motion from your thoughts.

Dr. CWho

havent they made a car that runs totaly on air? it runs on its own compressed air and it compresses air with the power from the air it compressed its not a perpetual motion matchine but it's great for what humans need. thinking of enything that could be a pepetual motion machine has left me at a big wall... i hate friction!

Bit4Bit,
Thanks for the recap. I've already done the math on losses. The one that concerned me most involved Lentz's Law and the effects it governs. Yes I'm aware of eddy currents, both in the coils and in the fluid. I've compensated for that in the design. The basic physics is likely more educational to others in the group, than a rebuttal, still it tells me that, as 425 implied, you aren't thinking outside the box of what is considered to be "known." It's becoming a good discussion of physics and I certainly welcome the challenges to why it should work.

The "magic valve" can be achieved in more than one method, but I recently re-thought that part and (in accordance with quantitative observations involved in the research) have a different design that uses no electric energy the device would produce to operate it. It will not be 100% efficient. It will require a small boost at the top of the ascending column to transfer the buoys to the descending column. Although heat sinks and perhaps a small pool of water can reduce the effect of the irreversible work that becomes heat, it may require some cooling and some low power pumps to scavange over spill in the bottom of the descending column. The descending column is open and air filled. The "magic valve" (proprietary "valve") prevents the fluid that fills the ascending column from backflow into the ascending column.

The biggest question I have will only show up in practical application and that involves how much power I really get from the device. It may be that the pumps and electronics and the "kicker" at the top will take up 25 - 50% of the output, however I seriously doubt it will total more than 5-10% losses.

I've been doing thought experiments on this for over 3 years now, so you folks are just being introduced to the concept and I imagine it would take an outsider to the vision more than that for "the lightbulb to glow" in your own genius areas.

Have fun thinking about this, but I recommend deleting the term perpetual motion from your thoughts.

Dr. CWho

The percentage efficiency of any machine is given by:

%Efficiency = [useful energy output / energy input] * 100

The fact that you can't have a ≥100% efficient machine operates on the basis that the useful energy output will always be less than the energy input, remeber:

E_{useful output}=E_input - E_losses

And as said already, losses will always exist. Do you agree?

That said, the ratio,

useful energy output / energy input

Will always be less than 1, and therefore the percentage efficiency will always be less than 1*100...always less than 100%. Agreed?

Above you have said that you will only require 5%-10% of the devices output, to operate the device, 25% at the max. Well think about: In a given time interval, the machine produces x Joules of energy. The max input to the machine will be 25% of this: x/4. Therefore:

%Efficiency = [useful energy output / energy input] * 100
=[ x / (x/4)] * 100
=[4x / x] * 100
= 4*100 =400%

Doc, you are telling us to forget about perpetual motion, but here you have just said that your machine will be 400% efficient....that it will create 4x more energy than it uses....but this is breaking the laws of energy conservation.

I am saying all of this without even knowing the exact details of your "magic valve"....without having to know the details of it!

The machine you are describing seems to be (you are being very illusive ) extremely similar to what Harold linked to (Even though you assure us it isn't). In which case I think you have also considered the need for energy input wrongly. For example, you wouldn't need any direct energy to get from the top of the water tower to the top of the free-fall tower....you could just use a ramp as in the picture of the machine in Harolds link.

The problem is returning the bouyant magnet into the bottom of the water tower. This is where energy input is needed, because the hydrostatic pressure at the bottom of the water tower will create a force against you, as the ball is pushed into the tower. The force you will have to provide will have to be bigger than this, in order for the ball to get through sucessfully. (this is the principle of water filling to the same level in a given container). The energy you will need for each magnet in this case will be much greater than that produced by each magnet passing through the coils, I can tell you that now. (Not to mention losses)

Your valve would also have to be extremely well design to prevent water from eventually filling the free-fall tube.

A good saying is:

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is!

In this case the theory doesn't even work out.

Originally Posted by numb3rs

havent they made a car that runs totaly on air? it runs on its own compressed air and it compresses air with the power from the air it compressed its not a perpetual motion matchine but it's great for what humans need. thinking of enything that could be a pepetual motion machine has left me at a big wall... i hate friction!

Yeh, the compressed air car actually uses the compressed air from a cylinder to drive a turbine, and the wheels. But how do they compress the air into the cylinder? :P

Bit4Bit,

I'm aware of losses. Every loss can be recovered with some ingenuity. I compliment your mathematical prowess. I'm reasonably good at math, but mostly a right brainer, so slower than the honor students. I did well in calc and back then tensor calc was a separate class.

It is not like the patent Harold linked us to. Eventually as time permits, I'm certain I'll have more intrinsic answers. Mostly I wanted this "introduction" thread to depict some of my work and findings. In reality, it's a bit early to do the math based on a prototype, but that will happen soon.

Great reference just the same. Keep firing your rebuttals at me. You offer the best I've seen to date.

DrCWho

Thank you, I'm flattered

Ingenuity can certainly help reduce losses, as is seen in all evreyday machines, putting efficiency on the upswing (cars are a good example), but nothing can get rid of them completely. Even if you have very small losses, your machine will eventually run out, unless you put energy back in to compensate. The act of getting the magnet back into the water can be considered a loss as un-useful energy, and in an ideal situation, this will take 100% of the output energy....taking other loss into account on top (friction/eddy current braking/air and water resistance), this will arrive at about 150% or more. Did you include the energy required for this into your losses? If not, your 25%, will be more like 125%, and the rest.

So long as you keep the specifics of your design to yourself, none of us can possibly comment on its physics. However I hope you will constantly have these laws of energy conservation in the back of your mind, if you plan to carry on with this....cause what it boils down to, is that these laws MUST hold true no matter what the details of your specific design is. I'd love to hear about your "magic valve", and the ideas you have proposed for it, but no matter how clever it is, I can guarantee it will take more energy than is produced by the coils.

Also, you mentioned that your design was very simple. If I was you, get down to a hardware shop, grab some piping, and whatever else you need, and throw it together for under £30 if that. Then at least you can see where the problems are in the theory, and patch them up in build number two.

Anyway, I'll make you a deal, if the machine works as you say it will, I'll publicly eat my hat! deal?

First...
Numb3rs,
I remember that car on the news. Never researched it and haven't heard much about it since till you brought it up. Yes perpetual motion is a real headbanger... :wink:


Bit4Bit,

Don't let it go to your head, but if I'm successful or not with the generator, I'm certain some of my other projects will prosper and I'll simply ask, "Where are you on the job market?" One of the requirements for me to get city help is to create jobs...

Regarding the efficiencies, etc. There truly are too many caveats involved as of yet, but most of the losses you mentioned I've already considered and accommodated. The efficiency I was referring to is the electronic efficiency, which has a slightly different formula (efficiency = output/input x 100) and deals with inductive losses, once again Lentz's Law.
Let's look at the examples Harold brought to the table. Instead of examining only why they won't work, which I agree they won't and I'll discuss that first, let's use them as merely poorly thought out designs of a possibly viable concept and see what it takes to make them work in the cases that aren't an obvious "headbanger." Also know that I picked up on "magic valve" because it takes less energy than typing "proprietary mechanism" or something like that.

The design with the two wheels is set up as an inverted advanced precession device. Even if it kept turning forever within a strong gravitational field, it would not tolerate a load. As you and others have mentioned, conservation of energy comes into play. How? Like Newton demonstrated, a mass moving in a straight line (which truly doesn't exist) will continue in that straight line. As we see even in the particle physics world, the tighter the radius of orbit, the higher the energy required to maintain the orbit; The Omega factor; Critical velocity. It requires greater energy to place an ICBM in Iran than it does to put a satellite in LEO and that requires more than putting one in HEO or deep space trajectories. The same type of Omega factor governs the Big Bang Theory, only in this case it is critical density, still the curves of acceleration and velocity do come into play.

Look at the "bubble machine," Harold related (incorrectly) to my postulated method. Let's say we corrected the obvious mechanical deficiencies by examining an correcting the polygon of force vectors to the point where it would continue as a gravitational engine. Once again, as soon as we apply a load it fails. Why? As we discussed, conservation of energy, only described more effectively as I was alluding to, by the presence of torque in angular velocity. How could we perhaps make the device work with a load? Maybe add an escapement to the design where the bubbles merely provide ballast keeping a pendulum in equilibrium. This becomes complex, though. As was mentioned somewhere about "Occum's Razor," simplicity is often the key. This shows up even in nuclear reactions.

Let's look at my idea again. The majority of the forces involved are linear, so energy is conserved. Don't worry about the magic valve, paranomasially I'd have to say the solution is quite baffling...

If you are thinking I'm sending the buoys up and down through one long continuous coil, I'd say give me more credit than that. I've planned for all fluid displacements involved including air. What I've been more concerned with is isolating the efficiency of the mechanical system from the efficiency of the electrical system as much as possible. That escapement idea might save the energy required to kick the buoys into the descending columns. In case you aren't looking at this part of the forest for all the trees, the weight of three twelve inch ceramic magnetic disks and the plastics required to encase them as a buoy will be about 30kg. The buoys will not quite fall over the edge (I think) like the cluster of balls in the "bubble machine."

Think of all that for a bit. I want to check out a few other threads in the 15 minutes I have left at the library.

Dr. CWho

Originally Posted by DrCWho

Bit4Bit,

Don't let it go to your head, but if I'm successful or not with the generator, I'm certain some of my other projects will prosper and I'll simply ask, "Where are you on the job market?" One of the requirements for me to get city help is to create jobs...

What's your question? What's my job?

Regarding the efficiencies, etc. There truly are too many caveats involved as of yet, but most of the losses you mentioned I've already considered and accommodated. The efficiency I was referring to is the electronic efficiency, which has a slightly different formula (efficiency = output/input x 100) and deals with inductive losses, once again Lentz's Law.

Efficiency is a concept that deals with energy of a system. It doesn't matter whether that energy is mechanical or electrical. Just as mechanical systems are never 100% efficient, neither are electrical systems. Mostly, losses occur as heat dissipation in resistive loads....and no circuit is without resistance. The formula you gave is the same formula I gave you. you can also replace energy with its time derivative, power, and arrive at the same quantity. The implications of the formula, as I have already well-explained is that the efficiency will always be less than 100%. If you still beg to differ, then please refer to my previous explanation, and point out exactly what is wrong with it....you seem to think you can abolish losses altogether, but you can't. If you could (A very big if), then your machine would only output as much power as input, so what would be the point anyway?

When a magnet moves through a coil, the flux of the magnetic field with respect to the coil will change. Faradays law tells us that an EMF will be induced in the coil. This is proportional to the time derivative of magnetic flux (The faster it goes, the greater the EMF). The induced EMF causes current to flow, which we know from Amperes law will itself create a magnetic field. The coil will then itself become an electromagnet, and Lenz's law tells us that the magnetic field created by the coil will act to oppose the change in flux of the magnet. The consequence of this is that the kinetic energy required to push through this force, and move through the coil is exactly equal to the amount of electricity (EMF induced)produced. Lenz's law is in fact the law of conservation of energy applied specifically to electromagnetic induction. In almost every definition you can find of this law, there is some mention of losses due to heat dissipation from resistance. This is to emphasise the idea of conservation of energy.

The design with the two wheels is set up as an inverted advanced precession device. Even if it kept turning forever within a strong gravitational field, it would not tolerate a load.

What the heck is an "inverted advanced precession device"?? Sure you didn't make that up? A quick search on google only led me back here.

As you and others have mentioned, conservation of energy comes into play. How? Like Newton demonstrated, a mass moving in a straight line (which truly doesn't exist) will continue in that straight line.

Well he said that if the forces on an object are in equllibrium, then the object will remain stationary (if it is already) or continue at a constant velocity in a straight line, (if it initially has some velocity). This follows from force being the time derivative of momentum, and so for a constant mass, a constant force gives the time derivative of velocity, acceleration. Masses can move in straight lines though. shoot a bullet in space, and you give it some impulse, it will continue unimpeded in space in a straight line travelling at the barrel velocity of the gun. The only thing affecting it would be gravity, which for such a small mass, at large distances from any massive bodies would be negligible.

As we see even in the particle physics world, the tighter the radius of orbit, the higher the energy required to maintain the orbit; The Omega factor; Critical velocity. It requires greater energy to place an ICBM in Iran than it does to put a satellite in LEO and that requires more than putting one in HEO or deep space trajectories. The same type of Omega factor governs the Big Bang Theory, only in this case it is critical density, still the curves of acceleration and velocity do come into play.

Now what the heck is "the omega factor" , and what does it have to do with this? All I could find was a paranormal UK drama series:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Omega_Factor

Look at the "bubble machine," Harold related (incorrectly) to my postulated method. Let's say we corrected the obvious mechanical deficiencies by examining an correcting the polygon of force vectors to the point where it would continue as a gravitational engine.

What is a gravitational engine? Engines run on cycles, gravity is a one way streak. A polygon of forces is something used to look at mechanical frameworks, but I'm not sure it has any relevance here. perhaps you are talking about eliminating losses? You can't completely do it. Your machine is obviously very similar that one, and since you are holding back so much info about the machine, I will assume it is the same, rather than speculate about vague descriptions.

Once again, as soon as we apply a load it fails. Why? As we discussed, conservation of energy, only described more effectively as I was alluding to, by the presence of torque in angular velocity.

What has torque got to do with this? Torque is a rotational force, applying only to direct physical rotations, like orbits. Not engine/machine cycles.

How could we perhaps make the device work with a load? Maybe add an escapement to the design where the bubbles merely provide ballast keeping a pendulum in equilibrium. This becomes complex, though. As was mentioned somewhere about "Occum's Razor," simplicity is often the key. This shows up even in nuclear reactions.

You need to be clearer about what you're saying.

Let's look at my idea again. The majority of the forces involved are linear, so energy is conserved. Don't worry about the magic valve, paranomasially I'd have to say the solution is quite baffling...

The universe is inherently non-linear, which is why losses are present, and difficult or impossible to gid rid of. Non-linear systems still obey conservation of energy anyway, they are just much harder to predict, and more chaotic in their nature, being extremely sensitive to intial conditions. In an idealised situation the forces involved can be modelled as being linear, although this is not a 100% accurate description of what's happeneing. Whats more, there is a difference between force and energy.

If you are thinking I'm sending the buoys up and down through one long continuous coil, I'd say give me more credit than that. I've planned for all fluid displacements involved including air.

It doesn't matter whether you are are using a single continuous coil, or any number of them along the length of the tubing. Each coil will use up an amount of energy that is exactly equal to integrating the kinetic energy over the length of the coil + heat dissipation losses in the coil. This is what Lenz's law states. The amount of kinetic energy increases as you increase the depth of the tube, since it is accelerating over a longer distance, but conversely the hydrostatic pressure at the bottom also increases, given by pgx, meaning more energy is required to insert the magnetic buoy back into the bottom of it for its next ascent.

To calculate that energy, you would need to integrate the hydrostatic pressure at that depth over the surface area of the buoy, and then integrate that over the distance required for the buoy to move into the fluid, until the upwards force becomes significant, and the ball starts its ascent. At that point, the valve would close, preventing water from jetting out of the tube. The energy of the entire processs would be greater than that calculated for the buoy, due to frictional (If the buoy is to sqeeze through a tight gap, preventing water from leaving the container, there will be friction) and other losses.

I know enough from your description to be able to say this, since you have a vertical container of water, which the buoys decend up, and for the machine to be continuous, you must have to put them back into the bottom, since there can only be a finite number of buoys. You mention of valves at the bottom also gives that away.

What I've been more concerned with is isolating the efficiency of the mechanical system from the efficiency of the electrical system as much as possible. That escapement idea might save the energy required to kick the buoys into the descending columns.

At the end of the day, the mechanical and electrical aspects of the system, are both parts of the same system, and whether you treat them as one, or individually, both will contribute to losses, and neither will be 100% efficient. I still have no idea what you mean by your "escapement idea", since you didn't explain it clearly enough.

In case you aren't looking at this part of the forest for all the trees, the weight of three twelve inch ceramic magnetic disks and the plastics required to encase them as a buoy will be about 30kg. The buoys will not quite fall over the edge (I think) like the cluster of balls in the "bubble machine."

During the ascent up the column of water, the buoys will be accelerating, and when they reach the surface they will have some final velocity of thier own. Depending on the depth of the water, the shape and weight of the buoys, and the slowing down due to lenz's law, the buoys may or may not be able to 'pop' out of the water at the top with this final velocity.....in some cases this is certainly the case, like if you hold a air-floater football underwater and let it go, it shoots to the surface, and jumps completely out.

Bit4Bit,
The job thing was simply a reference that probably should be in a personal message. I don't want to seem like I'm trolling. I'm not. I wanted to compliment your abilities to play the devil's advocate.

It doesn't matter whether you are are using a single continuous coil, or any number of them along the length of the tubing. Each coil will use up an amount of energy that is exactly equal to integrating the kinetic energy over the length of the coil + heat dissipation losses in the coil.

It does matter because, as Pouseule's Rule depicts, the inner velocities of fluid through a pipe are higher than those at the wall because of friction involved. I would think, regarding heat losses, you would have picked up on the fact I've "been there- done that" because I'm already thinking of dissapating the heat generated from those energy losses with a heat sink, perhaps fluid, like we would apply to the fuel in the wings of a 747.

It's good that you can see these problems.

Don't forget one factor that eliminates the eddy currents associated with Lentz's Law: The electrical system is never closed because it would be dumping right into the grid or into the load; the home or hospital per se.

So far, all empirical observations to date are not exhibiting as much loss and resistance as you are depicting. Take the classic exaample of the pendulum swinging through a powerful magnet: The symmetry of the copper or aluminum disk has the final say. If we perforate the disk, the effects are reduced. If we cut slots it is reduced more. If the slots open one end, like a pitchfork symmetry, the resistance is eliminated. Basic first year physics...

I'm going to check out some other threads for the rest of my available time online at the library. FYI, if you catch typos, such as 100eV, safely assume, I meant 100GeV because the other would not make sense.

DrCWho

Originally Posted by DrCWho

Bit4Bit,
The job thing was simply a reference that probably should be in a personal message. I don't want to seem like I'm trolling. I'm not. I wanted to compliment your abilities to play the devil's advocate.

Thank you

It doesn't matter whether you are are using a single continuous coil, or any number of them along the length of the tubing. Each coil will use up an amount of energy that is exactly equal to integrating the kinetic energy over the length of the coil + heat dissipation losses in the coil.

It does matter because, as Pouseule's Rule depicts, the inner velocities of fluid through a pipe are higher than those at the wall because of friction involved. I would think, regarding heat losses, you would have picked up on the fact I've "been there- done that" because I'm already thinking of dissapating the heat generated from those energy losses with a heat sink, perhaps fluid, like we would apply to the fuel in the wings of a 747.

Poiseuilles law is more relavent to fluid dynamics than statics. It gives the volumetric flow of a Newtonian fluid (Such as water in a pipe), taking into account viscous effects, and depending on the pressure difference between points of interest. The affect is caused by shear stress between layers of a laminar flow, and the 'no-slip condition' at the surface of the pipe creating a parabolic (in a cylindrical pipe) velocity gradient. These are called the boundary layer conditions, and are predominant in internal flows....particularly viscous ones. You wouldn't have to worry about this in your machine, since the velocity gradient is 0...the fluid is static.

The pressure gradient in hydrostatics is different... simply the result of having an increasing weight of water above you as you move downwards. This is what you will be concerned with, as I said, since it is what causes your buoy to accelerate to the surface.

What you should know is that for a long continuous coil spannning the whole length of the tube, the buoy will have a more-a-less constant velocity, due to a constant force pushing down and slowing it through the tube due to electromagnetic induction. Using a number of coils, the bouy should accelerate between coils, and travel at a more-a-less constant velocity through them, for the same reason. You can figure this by considering at any point in the fluid, the buoy has a greater pressure (hence force) on its lower surface than its upper, which means a constant acceleration. The amount of kinetic energy taken out while passing through a coil can be calculated by Lenz's law as said before.

Don't forget one factor that eliminates the eddy currents associated with Lentz's Law: The electrical system is never closed because it would be dumping right into the grid or into the load; the home or hospital per se.

I think you need revision on how electricity works. Rule number 1: If an electrical system is not closed, no electric current can flow. If it is closed current can flow. This is how a simple switch works. Come on doc. The mains grid is a closed circuit, with loads at all ends. If it wasn't, then no current would flow or energy be delivered. If you've ever changed a fuse, you'll see inside the plug that you have a live and nuetral wire (and safety Earth), both of which travel eventually to your power station and close a circuit.

I shouldn't have mentioned 'eddy current braking' because it's not entirely relevant. With EMI, a conducting material in a changin magnetic field will have a current induced, whos magnetic field opposes the change in the original one. (Lenz's law) In a closed circuit (or part of), current can flow around the circuit through a load, and do some work. Eddy currents are really something to describe the case of a standalone conductor, that is not part of a closed circuit, where EMI causes internal currents to flow. Rather than flowing through a circuit and being useful, the resistance of the material dissipates it as heat. As is the loss in ferrite cored transformers...hence the need for laminating.

So far, all empirical observations to date are not exhibiting as much loss and resistance as you are depicting. Take the classic exaample of the pendulum swinging through a powerful magnet: The symmetry of the copper or aluminum disk has the final say. If we perforate the disk, the effects are reduced. If we cut slots it is reduced more. If the slots open one end, like a pitchfork symmetry, the resistance is eliminated. Basic first year physics...

Exactly what effects are you talking about that are reduced? I'll asume you are talking about eddy currents. In which case as stated above, eddy currents will be induced in the disk, taking some kinetic energy out of it, and dissipating it as heat. The oscillation will eventually dampen away to nothing, as energy is lost as heat from the system. The symetry of the plate wouldn't have too much effect on the amount of eddy currents, I would imagine, but the perforations might. Eddy currents can indeed by reduced to some extent by changing certain properties of the material. Again theis is seen in laminated ferrite cores in transformers. Anyway, what does this have to do with your argument?

DrCWho, I'm not sure you are actually absorbing any of what i am telling you, but I am simply regurgitating known, and accepted laws of physics. Take it or leave it, but your questions/comments are becoming too vague to make any sense, or to be relevant. I am also very busy at the moment, and don't have time to be here that much. If you are reluctant to shed any more light on the set-up of your machine, then theres nothing more to be said, than what has been already. Hope I've cleared some things up.

Bit4bit, I think you have beaten up the new kid on the block and stolen his lunch money.

Poiseuilles law is more relavent to fluid dynamics than statics. It gives the volumetric flow of a Newtonian fluid (Such as water in a pipe), taking into account viscous effects, and depending on the pressure difference between points of interest. The affect is caused by shear stress between layers of a laminar flow, and the 'no-slip condition' at the surface of the pipe creating a parabolic (in a cylindrical pipe) velocity gradient. These are called the boundary layer conditions, and are predominant in internal flows....particularly viscous ones. You wouldn't have to worry about this in your machine, since the velocity gradient is 0...the fluid is static.

As I've stated before, I'm happy to see you don't fully understand the concept. I have a few more experiments and a mock-up to build before I apply for a patent.

The one thing that tends to make me giggle a bit (besides Harold who makes me wonder if he suffers from BPD...) is that you insist Harold's "bubble machine" patent is just like my idea. I have stated repeatedly the descending column relies on free-fall. Let's imagine you are resting on your back with your face looking directly into the chain driven system like you're staring at a long pipe to check out the perspective and vanishing lines, per se. Let's say the balls weight about as much as your brain, assuming yours weighs in within the standard deviation. If you had no choice but to endure the accident, would you want to get hit in the forehead by the ball at the bottom or one falling from the top?

Harold,
A sense of humor does not preclude someone from being a Borderline Personality Disorder victim. People who are bent on something being "black or white" can end up with a psychotic break. I'm not saying you are such, but you make me wonder a bit. Your posts are very terse. No room to breathe. I don't dislike you and I'm a caring fellow where my fellow man is concerned. (Why else would I give a hoot about global warming?...) Ask someone who is truly qualified to give you a qualified opinion. All I can do is point out something that doesn't seem right. Hope I'm wrong about that.

Regarding the comment: How can Bit4bit beat me up if he doesn't totally understand where to deliver the punches and how can he steal my lunch if he doesn't know where I hid it?

DrCWho,

I hope everyone on this forum starts ignoring you

You have the longest introduction forum i have seen in a while because you are so closed minded and people feel the need to try and knock some sense in you!

You sir, are no scientist, you are a psuedo-scientist. If you really worked for the army as an aerospace physicist, God Help our military!

You have this idea of what you want the universe to be, and stick to your "faith" even when facts are put right in front of you that prove otherwise.

That was a bit mean.

Originally Posted by DrCWho

Poiseuilles law is more relavent to fluid dynamics than statics. It gives the volumetric flow of a Newtonian fluid (Such as water in a pipe), taking into account viscous effects, and depending on the pressure difference between points of interest. The affect is caused by shear stress between layers of a laminar flow, and the 'no-slip condition' at the surface of the pipe creating a parabolic (in a cylindrical pipe) velocity gradient. These are called the boundary layer conditions, and are predominant in internal flows....particularly viscous ones. You wouldn't have to worry about this in your machine, since the velocity gradient is 0...the fluid is static.

As I've stated before, I'm happy to see you don't fully understand the concept. I have a few more experiments and a mock-up to build before I apply for a patent.

The concept of poiseuilles law, I understand, and have explained accurately, it is you who seems not to. If you think something is wrong with that description, then please adress it directly, rather than just stating it is wrong.

The one thing that tends to make me giggle a bit (besides Harold who makes me wonder if he suffers from BPD...) is that you insist Harold's "bubble machine" patent is just like my idea. I have stated repeatedly the descending column relies on free-fall. Let's imagine you are resting on your back with your face looking directly into the chain driven system like you're staring at a long pipe to check out the perspective and vanishing lines, per se. Let's say the balls weight about as much as your brain, assuming yours weighs in within the standard deviation. If you had no choice but to endure the accident, would you want to get hit in the forehead by the ball at the bottom or one falling from the top?

DrCwho, this is another example of vague description. Also, I have stated repeatedly, that I will continue to assume that your machine is like the "bubble machine", until you 1.) provide us with an accurate description of your machine OR 2.) If you are afraid of people stealing the idea, and continue to withhold information about it, then say so, and accept that scientific debate is based on scientific fact, and not guesswork.

You clearly have alot of holes in your understanding, which I or no-one else seem able to help you realise, despite directly addressing and explaining them, based on 'Physics'. I hope you don't think I'm being too harsh, but you haven't provided any substantial evidence nor scientific argument to back your case. It's not worth me saying any more in this thread, cause I would be repeating myself.

Originally Posted by DrCWho

Harold,
A sense of humor does not preclude someone from being a Borderline Personality Disorder victim. People who are bent on something being "black or white" can end up with a psychotic break. I'm not saying you are such, but you make me wonder a bit. Your posts are very terse. No room to breathe.

Thanks for your concern. I do have many personality defects but only one or two symptoms of Borderline Personality Disorder. My posts are terse because I don't like to repeat myself too often, when someone can just scroll up the page a ways to see what I already wrote. I am not about to joust with you on Poiseuilles rule or Lenz's law. It boils down to the fact that you think you can turn your watt-hour meter backwards with no visible source of energy. While you claim to believe in conservation of energy, you have offered nothing more than "potential energy." That's not an energy source unless you have a waterfall flowing in your back yard.

SNat,
If you can't behave yourself, young man(?) go stand in the corner for a half hour

It's no new observation that video gaming can be addictive and the effects of the addiction often result in anger that needs managing. Your nick and your avatar, suggested this when I first saw them. Do yourself a favor and others too. Get help. I was deriding Harold in return of his derision and I like him. I'm having difficulty playing "Will Rogers" with you, though, kid.

Nonetheless, if I'm a pseudo-scientist, you are a despotic monkey without a tale, Swiftly to be labeled a "Yahoo." Buckminster Fuller went through this garbage from Martin Gardner. Gardner was wrong and now we have a molecule named after Fuller. Give Gardner the brush, not Fuller...

Check in before you earn the Darwin Award. :wink:


Bit4Bit,

I want to remind you my time online is limited and my itinerary is hectic.

I will be vague, but if I have to do your homework, why bother with the discussion. Several things I have not been vague concerning their relevance. Most of these you are ignoring and you are picking at things that don't matter at this point.
1. The Omega factor.
You should already know this if you harp on conservation of energy. It is the essence of the universal prime "1." 1 divides any number, thus it is a prime factor. In most physics it is simply referred to as Omega, still it has a factorial meaning in that we solve for 1 or we solve for 0. 0 can actually be considered the universal antiprime, because it cannot be divided nor can it divide anything, still because we solve for it, it is a factor.

Can you give me another name for "common fraction?"

2. You are looking for errors in the refuge of semantics. For example "Inverted Advance Precession Device" is comparing an obvious use of resistance to roll as we would see in the design of suspension systems in any automobile, only the "inventor" attempted perpetual motion by designing the device upside down. The polygon of force creates an equilibrium triangle that will increase the constant of rolling friction on the axes of the wheels involved, so, although the higher mass of the upper wheel will allow it to continue for quite some time, it will literally grind to a halt.

Both directions of my proposed device rely on kinetic energy. The buoys can actually be defined as "density differential propulsion," like any bubble. Yes, the design's viability relies on the design of the buoys, but, contrary to your opinion, the velocity within the pipe will be present (and remember in subsequent posts I defined the essence of Pousseule's Rule. We both forget some of the essence of the other's posts...) because the buoys are in motion. I have compensated for this by appropriate allowance for both axial and lateral displacement; the coils have empty space between them. Just so you know, I've been working out the details for the internal losses within the coils themselves. The same internal resistances, heat losses, capacitative losses and surges, will come into play, but this will be a low frequency transformation type system.

(I'm running out of online time, so let's chew on that for a bit, Bit. :-D )

Thanx for the input, though. It's good exercise...

BTW, if I were you I'd have a hat made out of that material from which they make edible underwear. Either that or simply stock up on crow pies...


Harold,

That's very honest and open. I understand and, as mentioned earlier, was more in "joust" with your derision. I believe we're about the same age, so it's all in fun, still, do take care, my friend.


Catch y'all later,

Dr. CWho

Okay. So because of my avatar, I am both young, and am in need of anger management? You don't know me, you see an avatar and a signiture, but you don't know me. Just because video games are a hobby of mine, doesn't mean I need help.

You can't psycho-analyze me, and I sure wouldn't get help from the likes of you if I really did need it!

So, because I don't agree with you, I must be young, stupid, and a mental-case?

You don't know how old I am, you don't know how much or how little I play video games!

I could say you watch too much Classic Television, and that means you have an addiction to TV, but I don't know how much or how little TV you watch, and I am sure not gonna make a judgement on your mental stability from that!

P.S.

I am ineligible to win the Darwin award as I have already procreated, scary as you may think that is.

Definition of 'Avatar':

The manifestation of a Hindu deity in a visible form; incarnation;
supreme glorification of any principle (fig)


Abyssus abyssum invocat

And as said already, losses will always exist. Do you agree?

Getting back to this:
Of course.

I know I'm vague about some things. All I'm giving you is the basic concept I imagined 3 years ago. The details I've worked out since would naturally be proprietary. You would have to work out the technical details yourself.

I'm surprized, Bit, that you had to ask me what an escapement is. A clockwork.

I'm surprized we haven't agreed that I can't realistically give you all the design and moved on to question some deeper theories, relativity per se.

You probably know that in another thread someone else started about gravity, I've been postulating the possibility that it is a pushing force. That confuses most scientific thinkers, but do you agree that gravity is associated with the weak force and has infinite range?

You asked about the Omega factor, or simply Omega. This involves the description of a convolute universe, only the Omega factor demands a bubble shaped universe to corroborate big bang theory. The other end of that perspective demands elementary particles that are nonconservational. This involves the application of infinity in many areas of quantum mechanics, because a nonconservational particle would require a source of infinite energy and that would require a size shorter than the Planck length.

Remember the mass-energy equivocation demands that "The faster you go, the shorter you get." Think of that in comparison to Steven Spielberg's "Inner Space."

Dr. CWho

So, because I don't agree with you, I must be young, stupid, and a mental-case?

Not at all. It is because you defamed me. Most older and more experienced people don't jump to conclusions. A symptom is a symptom. Did I ask you if you hear voices? No. There was no symptom to suggest schizophrenia.

Are you a man? There was a question mark in that, indicating I don't know. Apparently you missed that. A trait of megalomania and megalomania goes hand in hand with BPD. I'm sure you exist in a state of denial, but I would question how many others in real life have a difficulty with you interrupting them in mid paragraph as though you already know what they were going to say.

I suppose this all boils down not so much to are you a man, but rather are you man enough to extend an apology for your defamatory remark?

If not, you have effectively made this forum a diatribe.

Dr. CWho[/list]

Originally Posted by Selene

Abyssus abyssum invocat

I'm still attempting "off the top of my head" translations, so I'm guessing:

Deep calls unto deep.

Yes?

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

Originally Posted by Selene

Abyssus abyssum invocat

I'm still attempting "off the top of my head" translations, so I'm guessing:

Deep calls unto deep.

Yes?

Yes, that's how the King James Version translates the psalm, but taken out of context it is often translated as "One hell summons another."
http://www.drbilllong.com/2006Words/LatinVI.html

Fascinating.

Wow,

So because supernatendo and I enjoy Video games we are mentally unwell?

hm.

I think some people just don't know how to live a little. Video games can be like good books. Perhaps something you know nothing about.

From reading your posts I can conclude that you, sir, are mentally unwell.

But assuming makes an ass out of U and Me.

=)

Have a nice, boring day.

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

Originally Posted by Selene

Abyssus abyssum invocat

I'm still attempting "off the top of my head" translations, so I'm guessing:

Deep calls unto deep.

Yes?

Sorry i missed this one

Abyssus abyssum invocat - Hell calls hell or one misstep leads to another

They had some strange sayings these Romans

Originally Posted by Crim50nredd

Wow,

So because supernatendo and I enjoy Video games we are mentally unwell?

hm.

I think some people just don't know how to live a little. Video games can be like good books. Perhaps something you know nothing about.

From reading your posts I can conclude that you, sir, are mentally unwell.

But assuming makes an ass out of U and Me.

=)

Have a nice, boring day.

Aw come on stop being sulky!

Brush things off!

There's nothing wrong with video games, they stimulate the mind like a good game of chess or reading a good book.

Too much of anything can be bad for you like everything else

Too much of anything can be bad for you like everything else

Yes, you can even play too much chess! When competing in chess tournaments I used to get the weirdest dreams! No visuals, no story line, no characters. The best way I can describe it, is an overwhelming presence of "strategy". Can't really describe it....

So because supernatendo and I enjoy Video games we are mentally unwell?

hm.

I think some people just don't know how to live a little. Video games can be like good books. Perhaps something you know nothing about.

From reading your posts I can conclude that you, sir, are mentally unwell.

Thank you for that little admission.

Unfortunately, as Selene is implying in an obsolete, yet educational manner, too much of anything is bad for you. "Consumers" in mental institutions make that "Nyaa! Nyaa! Same to you!" remark to the staff all the time. Sometimes that is appropriate. Sometimes it is not.

You are building a straw man, same as SNat attempted. A strawman is not unlike the game of "Pick Up Sticks" in that removing the right stick helps you win, but pulling the wrong stick brings it all down in a mess, so then you lose.

This is the 21st Century, in case you missed that fact. Most people, especially here in the formerly "cushy" America, are a bit stressed.

If my posting habits seem convolute to you, it is because you are truly thinking inside the box. This is typical, but in the case of the die hard video gamer, the box they think inside of is a potentially frustrating "Boob Tube."

I think outside the box, for the most part. Most who have difficulty with imagination, have difficulty comprehending out of the box thinking. The problem with video games is not the game, but is the user pouring their personality out of the game like an alcoholic pours his personality out of a bottle. Like alcoholics, everyone else can see the problem except the alcoholic.

Selene,

You are either quite a researcher, or quite a linguist. As I've stated, I'm a natural at paranomasia, but I choose to enjoy it as a gift, rather than a compulsion.

Mon pleurer est pleurer a chaudes larmes peur l'monde. Je suis l'homme de peine.


For those who wonder why a Dr. would invert a quote by Einstein, it is for similar reasons as those that reason signing my name backwards.
1. I can. 2. Few can or will copy it.

As for Einstein, like so many other scientists, especially in today's world of specialists, he avoided the use of infinity. Albert was phenomenal in his imaginatory nature, but he struggled with math far more than building blocks. As Selene has pointed out, comparatively, "like calls like" where thinking is the subject. "Hell calls Hell" is like Dr. Smith, of "Lost in Space," saying "Evil knows Evil..." In comparison, "Imagination calls Imagination." Where video games are concerned, "pseudo-imagination calls pseudo-imagination" and the results are "pseudo-anything calls pseudo anything." SNat was hoping with all his pseudo-imaginative being that I was a pseudo-scientist. Unfortunately he'll have look elsewhere, because in my case "Genuine calls Genuine."

Dr. CWho

Originally Posted by DrCWho

Mon pleurer est pleurer a chaudes larmes peur l'monde. Je suis l'homme de peine.

My crying is crying hysterically for the world. I am the man of suffering.

Blah I speak French every day and I could barely make that out lol, I'm still not even sure if that's what you meant. Mostly the mon pleurer confused me. lol

Originally Posted by DrCWho

So because supernatendo and I enjoy Video games we are mentally unwell?

hm.

I think some people just don't know how to live a little. Video games can be like good books. Perhaps something you know nothing about.

From reading your posts I can conclude that you, sir, are mentally unwell.

Thank you for that little admission.

Unfortunately, as Selene is implying in an obsolete, yet educational manner, too much of anything is bad for you. "Consumers" in mental institutions make that "Nyaa! Nyaa! Same to you!" remark to the staff all the time. Sometimes that is appropriate. Sometimes it is not.

You are building a straw man, same as SNat attempted. A strawman is not unlike the game of "Pick Up Sticks" in that removing the right stick helps you win, but pulling the wrong stick brings it all down in a mess, so then you lose.

This is the 21st Century, in case you missed that fact. Most people, especially here in the formerly "cushy" America, are a bit stressed.

If my posting habits seem convolute to you, it is because you are truly thinking inside the box. This is typical, but in the case of the die hard video gamer, the box they think inside of is a potentially frustrating "Boob Tube."

I think outside the box, for the most part. Most who have difficulty with imagination, have difficulty comprehending out of the box thinking. The problem with video games is not the game, but is the user pouring their personality out of the game like an alcoholic pours his personality out of a bottle. Like alcoholics, everyone else can see the problem except the alcoholic.

Selene,

You are either quite a researcher, or quite a linguist. As I've stated, I'm a natural at paranomasia, but I choose to enjoy it as a gift, rather than a compulsion.

Mon pleurer est pleurer a chaudes larmes peur l'monde. Je suis l'homme de peine.


For those who wonder why a Dr. would invert a quote by Einstein, it is for similar reasons as those that reason signing my name backwards.
1. I can. 2. Few can or will copy it.

As for Einstein, like so many other scientists, especially in today's world of specialists, he avoided the use of infinity. Albert was phenomenal in his imaginatory nature, but he struggled with math far more than building blocks. As Selene has pointed out, comparatively, "like calls like" where thinking is the subject. "Hell calls Hell" is like Dr. Smith, of "Lost in Space," saying "Evil knows Evil..." In comparison, "Imagination calls Imagination." Where video games are concerned, "pseudo-imagination calls pseudo-imagination" and the results are "pseudo-anything calls pseudo anything." SNat was hoping with all his pseudo-imaginative being that I was a pseudo-scientist. Unfortunately he'll have look elsewhere, because in my case "Genuine calls Genuine."

Dr. CWho

Everyone has a hobby. It doesn't make you mentally ill.

I would much rather play video games for an hour or two a day than drinking nine beers and beating my kid.

(Which I have NEVER done, nor do I condone it.)


Unfortunately, you don't know me, therefore, you have no idea who I am or what I do. Hence, you have no clue whether I think outside the box.

Stop assuming that you know everything, and for god's sake...

Stop petting Selene. I guess you want someone to stand up for you, in which case, I have no respect for you.

Finally, I really do not see your reasoning behind hobbies making us unstable.

Really.

I think you just wanted to insult him. Infact, it was quite obvious.

A doctor of Astrophysics has no place diagnosing people on the internet. Pop psychology is cheery and great un, but it's the bare necessities. So please refrain from calling people with hobbies, mental.

What a wonderfully positive introduction thread .

Originally Posted by DrCWho

"Consumers" in mental institutions make that "Nyaa! Nyaa! Same to you!" remark to the staff all the time.

And you often get certain types drawn to particular forms of employment because they actually really belong there, such as asylums. Trust me i know, i used to work in one!

Originally Posted by DrCWho

Selene,

You are either quite a researcher, or quite a linguist.

Thanks.

Is it possible someone could be 'quite' at both?

(actually i'm good at three things. I can pat my head whilst rubbing my belly at the same time...mmm....that's four!)

Originally Posted by DrCWho

Mon pleurer est pleurer a chaudes larmes peur l'monde. Je suis l'homme de peine.

Je ne comprends pas. Mon Français n'est pas aussi bon que mon latin.

Altissima quaeque flumina minimo sono labi

Amour Selene

Originally Posted by Crim50nredd

Stop petting Selene.

Carry on Doc!

Where do you want me, on the couch?

Originally Posted by Selene

Originally Posted by DrCWho

Mon pleurer est pleurer a chaudes larmes peur l'monde. Je suis l'homme de peine.

Je ne comprends pas. Mon Français n'est pas aussi bon que mon latin.

Altissima quaeque flumina minimo sono labi

Je pense que le Francais de DrCWHo n'est pas aussi bon que votre latin. Mais c'est pas grande chose .

My French isn't that good, but...

I think that the French of DrCWHo is not as good as your Latin. But it is not large thing.

Lol ya that's the literal translation, except the last part would better be translated as "it's not a big deal"

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Originally Posted by Selene

Originally Posted by DrCWho

Mon pleurer est pleurer a chaudes larmes peur l'monde. Je suis l'homme de peine.

Je ne comprends pas. Mon Français n'est pas aussi bon que mon latin.

Altissima quaeque flumina minimo sono labi

Je pense que le Francais de DrCWHo n'est pas aussi bon que votre latin. Mais c'est pas grande chose .

Oooh la la.

Merci beaucoup!

Everyone has a hobby. It doesn't make you mentally ill.

Some have crack as a hobby. Most of those never recover completely. Same goes for ecstacy, alcohol, meat, etc.

Stop petting Selene. I guess you want someone to stand up for you, in which case, I have no respect for you.

Giving orders are we? Any control freak can do that. If you and SNat are saying you both do video games and both of you resort to despotism as a final refuge, then you both become a statistic that indicates video gaming results in megalomaniacal behavior. From what I've seen this symptom in video gamers is not uuncommon.

SNat defamed me. I insulted him with a truthful opinion. There is quite a difference. I wouldn't care if you were a neurosurgeon, if you turned up the flames on me, I'd douse them with the truth about your behavior.

Perhaps you can learn to stop feeding Doom's pocket with an addiction you defend with common addict's excuses.

Respect? You probably have difficulty respecting me because you have difficulty respecting anyone who shows you a potentially better way. This is typical of blue collar workers' supervisors. Having spent years of my life as a manufacturing engineer, I've repeatedly heard these types say, "We haven't done it that way before." This mentality is the crux of pollution and hence global warming and genetic mutations. Ever notice the difference in onions over the past 25 years? Maybe you aren't that old yet. Another example is hermaphroditic polar bears are becoming common in the Arctic. PCB's in the waterways has been determined as the cause of this mutation.

Staying in denial is a certain road to disaster. I hope you don't realize this too late. I've lost friends and classmates in the past that failed to step beyond denial.

I suggest you try joining a support group...

(actually i'm good at three things. I can pat my head whilst rubbing my belly at the same time...mmm....that's four!)

If you apply infinity as a factor, your math would make sense... :wink:

One better ya? I can fly a helicopter and watch out for other aircraft, check the altimeter, the compass rose, the horizon indicator and talk to the tower in approximately the same time sequence. As with your example, this is multi-tasking. Flying the chopper alone is like rubbing your tummy, patting your head and jumping up and down while blowing a bubble from a wad of Bazooka and making sure it doesn't blow up on your face.

My French is lousy, I admit, and I'm 1/3 French. Mein Deutch is besser, aber ist schlecht auch.
Foreign grammar keeps me a monoglot.

What can you expect otherwise from someone from the planet Gallefrey where Oxford English is the ancient adopted language. Something like the native Americans (I'm 1/3 Shoshone but don't have a clue as to the language...) adopting English. That's nothing but a role playing fantasy that goes with my nick. It's fun.

My crying is crying hysterically for the world. I am the man of suffering.

That was correct. Perhaps I have a deeper social conscience than most.

Il fait beau a l'mort...

Keefer Southerland's opening line in Flatliners, over dubbed... :wink:


I'm happy to see you are better at French than I am. We all seem to enjoy expressing our talents here. In that regard, yes this is a positive introduction thread. Show and tell is a great way to begin...

Carry on Doc!

Where do you want me, on the couch?

Mai, oui! :wink:


First though, I recommend a nice luxurious bath and macerating to ecstacy...


Instead of bothering the forum's shrink forum, I'll ask here: Can anyone locate a site where there is a good display of artwork created by schizophrenics? I've probably been using the wrong keywords and this is befuddling at times. An example of using wrong keywords is looking for patents concerning hydrostatic power generation. Harold brought one to the table and immediately after I used the keywords buoyancy energy and found more unpatented examples. None of those will work either. This seems not because the concept is inadequate, but the inventors' understanding of equilibrium among other things.

See you folks soon,

Dr. CWho


[/quote]

Originally Posted by DrCWho

That was correct. Perhaps I have a deeper social conscience than most.

Il fait beau a l'mort...

Keefer Southerland's opening line in Flatliners, over dubbed... :wink:


I'm happy to see you are better at French than I am. We all seem to enjoy expressing our talents here. In that regard, yes this is a positive introduction thread. Show and tell is a great way to begin...

It's not much of a talent considering 95% of the population of Quebec is capable of speaking the language lol. Oh well.

At death it feels good.

"Rien ne réussit comme le succès."

A quote from Dumas' Ange Pitou.

"Rien ne réussit comme le succès."

Nothing succeeds like success?

Video Games, Profiling, breaking the laws of Physics, large amounts of math and science I can not begin to comprehend and multiple languages. I think that covers about everything and more. You have seemed to have stirred a honets nest.



But since I am a military junkie figured I might ask Doc a question. What unit did you serve in when you were keeping the birds in the air during your service in the United States Army if you don't mind me asking?

(Combat Engineers?)

Also welcome. Pretty cool intro. 8)

Sinking into my dark corner, people who I.Q.s and brains that are much larger than mine please refrain from saying anything to me in another language as it might kill me. I never knew people could be so smart everyone on this forum knows usually more than one language and advanced physics what's up with that.

Originally Posted by Demon X01

Video Games, Profiling, breaking the laws of Physics, large amounts of math and science I can not begin to comprehend and multiple languages. I think that covers about everything and more. You have seemed to have stirred a honets nest.



But since I am a military junkie figured I might ask Doc a question. What unit did you serve in when you were keeping the birds in the air during your service in the United States Army if you don't mind me asking?

(Combat Engineers?)

Also welcome. Pretty cool intro. 8)

Sinking into my dark corner, people who I.Q.s and brains that are much larger than mine please refrain from saying anything to me in another language as it might kill me. I never knew people could be so smart everyone on this forum knows usually more than one language and advanced physics what's up with that.

My physics peeks at basic quantum mechanics and magnetism lol. I wouldn't worry about the languages either, I know people with Down Syndrome who can speak two languages.

We can be confused by the physics together.

I am glad someone in here understands me.

Physics= supermassive head trauma.

Yes let's be confused lol. :wink: [/quote]

Demon,
Thanx for the welcome. The linguists here are far, far more advance than I.
The physics grows deeper with the greater understanding of singularities.

Quick quiz:
If division by zero = infinity, what does multiplication by infinity equal?

For your mil spec question: 3D INF. Beyond that is classified, or needs be if I respect my own country.

What do you think would be the effect of an enzyme that converts the Fe in porphyrins to Mg?

I discovered just such a nanotech enzyme while working on a solution for MS that is far more intricate than the interferons. That is one reason I stay a bit vague on many subjects. I've been studying macromolecular chemistry for about 20 years now and over the past 3 it has led me into biochemistry, for the obvious reason.

Laws of physics? There's only one that unifies everything within the luminal radius of the universe. E=mc^2.

Multi-verses? I don't think so.

Sleepy,

Magnetism is fascinating. My generator device would not be possible without the good old lodestone.

DrCWho

Originally Posted by DrCWho

Demon,


Quick quiz:
If division by zero = infinity, what does multiplication by infinity equal?

000000000.............. infinitely

Do i get a prize if i get the right answer???

Just a quick atagirl! Time's up for today. cu soon...

You can't multiply or divide by infinity, cos it just aint a number!

It's a wee drop of mathematicians oil just to help things along a wee bit.

3D INF. Cool I am not to fimilar with the Army's units just sort of a question of curiostiy.

I totaly understand classified, I am a SPEC OP's candidate myself. Hell my e-mails from my motativator come with a Confidential stamp on them. Thanks for your service.

Quiz= :?

Hey but I have seen that E=mc^2 somewhere before. Something to do with the speed of light, mass and velocity, right.

I am slowly learning more and more.

Originally Posted by wert

You can't multiply or divide by infinity, cos it just aint a number!

It's a wee drop of mathematicians oil just to help things along a wee bit.

Yes you can just think about it logically dividing by an infinitesimally large number will always be near 0, and multiplying by an infinitesimally large number number will be infinitesimally large lol.

Limits, I believe they teach this in Cal 1.

Originally Posted by DrCWho

The physics grows deeper with the greater understanding of singularities.

Quick quiz:
If division by zero = infinity, what does multiplication by infinity equal?

x/0 does not = infinity. If L=x/y, then lim_y->0x/y = infinity, but division by zero is actually not defined, so as y tends to 0, L tends to infinity asymptotically, but is not actually defined when y=0.

Multiplication by infinity = infinity, just as,
infinity+infinity=infinity
and,
infinity-infinity=infinity

You can't multiply or divide by infinity, cos it just aint a number!

Sleepy was correct.

x/0 does not = infinity. If L=x/y, then limy->0x/y = infinity, but division by zero is actually not defined, so as y tends to 0, L tends to infinity asymptotically, but is not actually defined when y=0.

Methinks ye err and so do the textbooks. Ever used a Machinery's Handbook? There's a companion to it call Mathematics at Work. You don't need to journey too far into it to find examples of division by zero. x would be an algebraic variable, so shorthand and must reflect some quantity, thus either a rational or irrational number. Any number divided by infinity will equal infinitesimality. C'mon Bit, any average math guy knows that an intrinsic alphabetic "a" or "x" or any other character cannot be used in math without assigning a quantity. Asymptote or fishing boat (What science has a boat? Hint: not nautical, but could be naughty.) your argument just will not float.

Division by 0 = infinity. infinity^2.......... n ........ infinity will always equal zero because infinity is unsurpassable. Ask Stephen Hawking to explain to you what comes after infinity. In his "A Brief History of Time," he explains that after infinity is nothing. Even Ozzy Ozborne knows that... (Master of Reality; "After Forever") Math is more than just knowing. It involves understanding.

Hey, Bit,
You never did answer my preferential gravity x mass question? :wink:


How are we all today?

Me? My Neuropathy is unbearable

Later.

Dr. CWho

Originally Posted by DrCWho

x/0 does not = infinity. If L=x/y, then limy->0x/y = infinity, but division by zero is actually not defined, so as y tends to 0, L tends to infinity asymptotically, but is not actually defined when y=0.

Methinks ye err and so do the textbooks. Ever used a Machinery's Handbook? There's a companion to it call Mathematics at Work. You don't need to journey too far into it to find examples of division by zero. x would be an algebraic variable, so shorthand and must reflect some quantity, thus either a rational or irrational number. Any number divided by infinity will equal infinitesimality. C'mon Bit, any average math guy knows that an intrinsic alphabetic "a" or "x" or any other character cannot be used in math without assigning a quantity. Asymptote or fishing boat (What science has a boat? Hint: not nautical, but could be naughty.) your argument just will not float.

First you think you can break the energy conservation law, and now you think it is valid to divide by 0. These two facts are famous examples of psuedoscientists claims....and you supposedly have a Phd???

Division by 0 is not defined over the integers, rationals, reals or complex numbers. In case you are nitpicking, that is what my x represented previously. It is absolute nonsense to talk about division of x by zero, especially out of a machinery handbook...what the heck would it be doing in there???

x/0 is meaningless. An example is there is ten apples, divided by two people..each recieves 10/2=5 apples. The apples are divided by 1 person.. he recieves 10/1 = 10 apples. To talk about 10 apples being divided by 0 people is meaningless. Algebraically if one treats division by zero as valid, then it leads to too many bogus proofs like 1=2. My god, surely you must have studied the graph of 1/x at some point?!

Division by 0 = infinity. infinity^2.......... n ........ infinity will always equal zero because infinity is unsurpassable. Ask Stephen Hawking to explain to you what comes after infinity. In his "A Brief History of Time," he explains that after infinity is nothing. Even Ozzy Ozborne knows that... (Master of Reality; "After Forever") Math is more than just knowing. It involves understanding.

I've got the book, and haven't read it all yet, but whatever it is, I'm sure you got the wrong end of the stick of what Hawking was trying to say. Afaik, It has always been common practice that infinity*infinity = infinity, and even infinity-infinity=infinity. I'm sure Serpicojr could clear this up, if he checks out the thread.

Hey, Bit,
You never did answer my preferential gravity x mass question? :wink:

I didn't read it. Energy must be conserved.

Back to the diatribe, are we?

I can't imagine anyone being able to balance a ledger or even a checkbook with math understanding like that.

I have come to the conclusion that you fail at understanding physics. Just about anyone can c&p formulas, but either you don't do algebra and calc that well, or the "scholars" you've learned from were smokin' in the boys room...

We'll likely reach another opinionated impass in this, so why bother. If x = infinity, then, like any other quantity, x-x=0. Elementary school algebra today.

Happy counting...


Dr CWho

Doc, what I've said is right. I am confident, based on your replies that my knowledge of mathematics, and indeed experience of applying it, is greater than yours. I believe my knowledge of physics is greater then yours too.

I haven't seen you follow a correct physical or mathematical argument yet, whereas 99% of mine have directly adressed the problems, without the bullshit. I am clear and to the point, you skirt around the edges, spit out some large words, and expect people to believe that you are a physics Phd. Dress it up how you want, you have claimed that you can break the law of energy conservation, and that you can divide things by zero.

These claims are laughable...in fact within the physics community, they are famously laughable. After doing a phd you would have known that. Enough of the bullshit, I for one am not buying it.

Have mirrored opinions of each other do we?

As I said before, you've made this forum a diatribe. By your statements this forum is filled with only pseudo-scientists, save for myself. A sane person in an insane world. So why bother?

Jelly baby?