Notices
Results 1 to 84 of 84

Thread: infinite energy possible?????

  1. #1 infinite energy possible????? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    5
    can energy be created in a system without applying or feeding external work to the system.is it possible by some mechanism to prove conservation of mass and energy wrong???


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: infinite energy possible????? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by siddhanth
    can energy be created in a system without applying or feeding external work to the system.is it possible by some mechanism to prove conservation of mass and energy wrong???
    Of course, but what are you going to do with it? No one I know of has been able to get it built and sold. You can build it. No one wants to know about it. It is against the law to patent it.
    Most already know that oil is a leash. It is not a necessity. So rather then to face they are retarded slaves it is easier to confuse the reality.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    It is not possible. You say you can build one? Why don't you? You would have free energy and lots of spare cash because of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    It's not actually against the law to patent a perpetual motion machine. The patent office is just tired of dealing with fakes that don't actually work. For this reason they require a working demonstration of such a machine before granting the patent. However, they're not all that strict about it. If you show something that even looks like it works, they'll still grant you a patent. That doesn't mean it actually is a perpetual motion machine though, just that some clerk couldn't tell the difference at first glance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    It is not possible. You say you can build one? Why don't you? You would have free energy and lots of spare cash because of it.
    Get a capacitor, light bulb and battery at Radio Shack, put them in series and look at perpetual motion when you light the bulb, and charge the capacitor with no more energy then it takes to light the bulb. You can double your energy or more.

    Now to get that into something that automatically charges and keeps something lit, it does take some brain work. And we should make some standard stuff to safely hold down and shut off projects, that do perpetuate. As well as build some safe devices for kids that promote easy safe self perpetuation.

    So many accidents occurred to people that do understand this, that they just gave up. It is dangerous. Capacitors explode as voltage goes up. Lethal voltage can be created.

    I don't feel safe near devices that almost perpetuate. Much less devices that perpetuate. In other words I create stuff that requires a small constant input. And shut off without it. They can still escalate to destruction though. Devices that would self perpetuate would be dangerous without some nifty protection schemes.

    In my area we had planes that were perpetual motion. Built in the fifties. No one wanted them. They no longer exist. Yet they took off and landed all over the United States. No bombing range limitations.

    If you don't know there is such a thing as perpetual motion, you should not touch electricity.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Get a capacitor, light bulb and battery at Radio Shack, put them in series and look at perpetual motion when you light the bulb, and charge the capacitor with no more energy then it takes to light the bulb. You can double your energy or more.
    Yeah, I've tried this before. When you disconnect the battery (that was charging the capacitor) the light stays on... briefly. Then it fades out. Hardly perpetual.

    By the way, if you have something outside the device charging it, then it's obviously not self-perpetuating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Get a capacitor, light bulb and battery at Radio Shack, put them in series and look at perpetual motion when you light the bulb, and charge the capacitor with no more energy then it takes to light the bulb. You can double your energy or more.
    Yeah, I've tried this before. When you disconnect the battery (that was charging the capacitor) the light stays on... briefly. Then it fades out. Hardly perpetual.

    By the way, if you have something outside the device charging it, then it's obviously not self-perpetuating.
    You are either being facetious or you have never done it. The only other possibility is to grim.

    If you connect a bulb, in series with a capacitor and battery, the circuit can only draw, what passes through the light bulb, to light the light bulb, nothing more.

    So you light your light bulb, with the normal amount of power it took to light the light bulb. But miraculously the capacitor has been charged for free. And can be used to light the light bulb again for free.

    That is one cycle of free power from nothing. So we have creating free power licked. Yes it is that simple.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Yes, and when I disconnect the battery, the light buld only stays lit briefly. Even if it did what you said, that's not a perpetual motion machine. The battery would still be drained, just not quite as much.

    When was the last time you tried this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Yes, and when I disconnect the battery, the light buld only stays lit briefly. Even if it did what you said, that's not a perpetual motion machine. The battery would still be drained, just not quite as much.

    When was the last time you tried this?
    I fool with it here and there.

    Here is one that is interesting. I run the power from the battery through the set pot, light bulb, and capacitor, and there is not even enough power to light the light bulb.

    Yet from the capacitor that was in series with the light bulb and battery. There is plenty of power to light the light bulb.

    The danger is getting it to perpetuate. I have no problem making power. Getting together with guys to do it safely is something else. As well as getting it in a rugged container, as well as sized to be useful.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Electricity/capacity.wmv

    I talk to people that claim that they are afraid it cannot work, all the time. Do the math. If you create free power, that power can create free power. Until you are your own source.

    Perpetual motion is nothing new, and to me nothing exciting. To me exciting is getting back to space travel.

    You have to excuse my emotional ending, in this next movie, I was trying to incite the fellow who swore the volts and amps could not be so close.
    From the battery and from the capacitor.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Electricity/wattdoubler.WMV

    He then claimed the volt meter was way off. So I did it with an oscilloscope. The volt meter was highly accurate.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    5
    i just want to know if infinite or unlimited energy can be extracted frm a system without doing any work?i.e.can the law of conservation of energy be proved wrong...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    No, you cannot create unlimited energy without giving something in return. If someone were to create an actual perpetual motion device/unlimited energy device, it would likely break down the matter around it as a means to compensate. If this device were exponential, it would act like a black hole and obliterate the earth.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Yes it is, anything is possible. They said we couldn't fly millenia ago, they said we could never talk to people far far away in an instant, they said we would never do many a great thing. But we have. Time will tell, sooner or later. I don't know how its possible, but then again I don't know how a to make a plane fly.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Actually, the law of conservation of energy is no longer without proof. In fact, it comes about as a natural consequence that the laws of physics don't change over time. This is one part of a more general result called Noether's Theorem. I think it's a particularly impressive result. It basically states that any symmetry gives rise to a conserved quantity. Laws of physics are the same here as over there, so momentum is conserved. They're the same facing this way as that, so angular momentum is conserved. Etc.

    On the other hand, it's starting to look like space itself is quite full of energy, though no one knows if this can be extracted to do work or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by siddhanth
    i just want to know if infinite or unlimited energy can be extracted frm a system without doing any work?i.e.can the law of conservation of energy be proved wrong...
    More then likely you are going to need some work done. I mean if you are going to make nickle cadmium batteries to hold a charge for your perpetual motion system, it is going to take energy to make the batteries and you will probably have to give them an initial charge.

    But once you get that behind you. It is very possible to create perpetual motion. All too possible. Most of our electrical equipment is not that efficient because the less efficient the safer it is, to some extent. With time and true purpose we could match that safety with perpetual motions systems.

    The idea originally was that they could make all the power they wanted at the towns power plant, very cheaply, under expert super vision. With massive safeties in place to shut it down. Using a small fossil fuel engine that could be shut down easily. And then use very safe more inefficient stuff in homes, and it will shut right off. It will help drain excess power, during an accident or storm.

    That never came to be, across the nation, at least not with such good intentions.

    The government wanted control of power, and power companies had pride in their power distribution schemes and engineering. There were battles, there where government regulations, tax breaks. Somewhat openly stated to be in place to cause a singular standard. Which was a good idea. It would never happen. But it was a good idea.

    Yet the government recommendations, tax breaks and incentives often chose odd or strange standards. Not the "A" choice.

    In our area, we used to have 50 hertz power. Before my time. One day the power company decided in accordance with government regulations and recommendations to switch to 60 hertz power. Many of our local businessmen lost their shops. Because most of their motors that were made to run on 50 hertz, went to fast, on 60 hertz.

    It caused them to draw more amperage and overheat, in most cases. Many of the expensive safeties that protected them had to be disabled while new ones were ordered. Of course a shortage of such devices causes higher prices for such things.

    Of course neither the private sector or the government took responsibility for it totally. And there were calls to get rid of the power companies and calls to get rid of government.
    The government was in total control. I doubt highly if you could blame the power companies. Were there unscrupulous power company owners? Sure. But there was a seething government behind the whole thing.



    The government just took over our power company here on the Island. All their trucks read national grid.

    We currently get power from Canada. A very poor un-American and anti George Washington act.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    No, you cannot create unlimited energy without giving something in return. If someone were to create an actual perpetual motion device/unlimited energy device, it would likely break down the matter around it as a means to compensate. If this device were exponential, it would act like a black hole and obliterate the earth.
    That is really not true. You can create massive amounts of energy from bits of energy. Literally a spark to start it off. I once sat for about a minute, letting static electricity reciprocate from my finger to a television set. Until my finger started to feel like it was burning up.

    Perpetual motion means that it will continue on for perhaps one lifetime. We don't expect normal appliances to last much more then that. And we cannot expect perpetual motion devices to last much more then that before they wear out.

    The problem is in shutting them down. Even when you get it shut off there are devices that may still reciprocate, if they are fed a spark or spike from a failed or failing system. So there must be well thought out shut down procedures for them.

    Look at all the people on this forum grasping at truly bizarre "time distillation" beliefs. Beliefs that make time travel possible if only in their minds, by the poor basis of fact, they are built on.

    Yet things which can be easily demonstrated, in basic principle to you, are shunned and condemned. Very pessimistic. And unscientific.

    If perpetual motion gets going out of control, it can create a black hole where the power distribution transformer used to sit. However that can happen in a factory with standard equipment malfunctioning or wired in wrong, and not prepared for perpetual motion.

    Real scientists are ordained by God to search out truth, God. And are protected under Gods almighty power, and wisdom.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    William, you don't even believe in black holes. You've said so yourself. And it's "time dilation" not "time distillation". The biggest nail in your scientific coffin is that you have not demonstrated even one of these supposedly easily demonstratable phenomena.

    Also, you seem to be getting less and less coherent over time. You might want to talk to a psychologist before it's too late.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Actually, the law of conservation of energy is no longer without proof. In fact, it comes about as a natural consequence that the laws of physics don't change over time. This is one part of a more general result called Noether's Theorem. I think it's a particularly impressive result. It basically states that any symmetry gives rise to a conserved quantity. Laws of physics are the same here as over there, so momentum is conserved. They're the same facing this way as that, so angular momentum is conserved. Etc.

    On the other hand, it's starting to look like space itself is quite full of energy, though no one knows if this can be extracted to do work or not.
    Did you ever look at the history of physics in the United States? They had electricity going in both directions from the same poll.

    Then they had a cathode ray tube cathode, marked with both symbols. I had to learn it both ways in school. My teacher nearly shed tears in class. Stammered as he had to give us both acronyms for the same device. Each acronym with two different meanings for the same device. You have no idea of what you talk of.

    I think they should fix the labeling on the current batteries, to show the abundance of pressure, electromotive force, coming from the (+) marked symbol, rather then the (-) marked symbol as it is marked now.

    It would be exactly in line with every other labeling convention for pressure or substances we measure.

    Exacting science is not even understood by modern scientists.

    Meanwhile Benjamin Franklin with some 250 year old lab equipment conquered electricity. And had the symbols correct.

    Then they were changed by colleges. Then Joe the welder showed them how it really is, with a couple hundred dollars worth of equipment. The colleges said and I quote "it is just a convention anyway isn't it"?

    The error was as stupid as the theory of attraction in this universe.

    Now I wish to build and patent a nearly perfect perpetual motion machine. I have to either mislabel the device. Or mislabel the device. It now takes a room full of the best, a few hours just to straighten out each others misunderstandings from working with so many mislabeled components.

    But you know modern science is accurate. Yea.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Also, you seem to be getting less and less coherent over time. You might want to talk to a psychologist before it's too late.

    Well that is real thoughtful of you. Is that how they train individuals in college to handle a sick mind? With comments like that? Ha-ha.

    You know what you mean to do, with your lies. And your lethal mislabeling.

    Actually you are just able to grasp less and less.

    There is no such thing as time distillation, or time dilation and it is so obvious to real scientists, that you are just making a fool of yourself. And if you take the phony multi subatomic particle scientists with you all the better.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Are you admitting to having a sick mind? Otherwise, you are admitting to having no sense of wit/humor/irony/sarcasm. (BTW, I have no training in dealing with such people. Colleges don't teach that to everyone, just the psychology students.)

    I've actually managed to grasp a good deal of what your theory is proposing; however, you've yet to produce one shred of evidence either for your theory or against anything else. All you've done is rant about history and conspiracies. Until you do otherwise, I'll continue to take you less and less seriously.

    And yes, by my definition of "a sick mind", you do indeed have one. I have already stated that I feel a closed belief system should be classified as a mental illness, and while it is, by definition, impossible for you to say that you suffer from it, from my point of view, it's obvious that you do.

    (BTW, I have no idea where you're getting time distillation from.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    You are either being facetious or you have never done it. The only other possibility is to grim.

    If you connect a bulb, in series with a capacitor and battery, the circuit can only draw, what passes through the light bulb, to light the light bulb, nothing more.

    So you light your light bulb, with the normal amount of power it took to light the light bulb. But miraculously the capacitor has been charged for free. And can be used to light the light bulb again for free.

    That is one cycle of free power from nothing. So we have creating free power licked. Yes it is that simple.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    The loss is in the battery McCormick. If you would actually test the things you talk about you would see you are wrong. I come to this forum daily and expect to find something interesting to talk or debate about. Instead I usually find you trying to debate some simple law or concept in physics.

    You do not get a 'free cycle of power' from a capacitor and battery combination. The battery sets up a Electric field in the wire that polarizes the capacitor with equal but opposite charge. Then when the capacitor is fully charged the current goes to zero.

    Adding a light bulb is the equivalent of adding resistance. So the Capacitor is never fully charged when it is having power drawn from it by the bulb. When the battery is disconnected the voltage across the capacitor is tapped into and then the capacitor eventually looses charge and potential difference (Voltage). The charge and voltage go to zero and the bulb shuts off.

    The battery has lost a small amount of it's EMF because it charged the capacitor and the light bulb. All you did was store charge in the circuit and thus stored voltage. You didn't create energy!

    Capacitors are good for building up a charge or voltage that can be dissipated quickly into a circuit. That is how the flash on a camera works. The battery builds up charge in the capacitor and then you get a flash when you press the button. That flash would not be possible with the low voltage batteries used to power cameras.

    William please stop talking nonsense!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Are you admitting to having a sick mind? Otherwise, you are admitting to having no sense of wit/humor/irony/sarcasm. (BTW, I have no training in dealing with such people. Colleges don't teach that to everyone, just the psychology students.)

    I've actually managed to grasp a good deal of what your theory is proposing; however, you've yet to produce one shred of evidence either for your theory or against anything else. All you've done is rant about history and conspiracies. Until you do otherwise, I'll continue to take you less and less seriously.

    And yes, by my definition of "a sick mind", you do indeed have one. I have already stated that I feel a closed belief system should be classified as a mental illness, and while it is, by definition, impossible for you to say that you suffer from it, from my point of view, it's obvious that you do.

    (BTW, I have no idea where you're getting time distillation from.)

    Well a closed mind is a sickness indeed.

    And every time you use sentences like, "No one else feels that way". "No other scientist on earth believes that". "You are the only one that believes it". "There is no evidence that any scientist believes this".

    You tighten the draw strings on your own straight jacket.

    I have mentioned where it is simple to disprove all the modern scientists. With simple old Universal Science. That whopped the tar out of multi subatomic particle scientists in a fair fight. So well that even the multi subatomic particle scientists had to know where they were, when they got the grant monies. Despite utter defeat.

    The reason multi subatomic particles scientists don't go anywhere, and cannot even go back to the moon. Is because, they know they are not scientists. After they lost the debates.

    I can see the tremendous meandering of multi subatomic particle scientists. And I know why. They don't have a clue about real science. And if someone did that to them, against all of Gods teachings and logic, then they don't even want to meet the evil that did that to them. So they just stay low and hide. They are in a mind war with themselves. And winning. Ha-ha.





    If you don't get the joke, if you were in a mind war, the only way to win, would be to stop the war. You cannot win a war.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I have mentioned where it is simple to disprove all the modern scientists.
    Yes, that's all you've done is mention it. That's all you've done. You have not once actually attempted to disprove anything, nor provided one scrap of evidence against anything. This is for one simple reason: you can't do it.

    I'm willing to change my mind about anything, if provided with evidence; the one thing you don't have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by GenerationE

    The loss is in the battery McCormick. If you would actually test the things you talk about you would see you are wrong. I come to this forum daily and expect to find something interesting to talk or debate about. Instead I usually find you trying to debate some simple law or concept in physics.

    You do not get a 'free cycle of power' from a capacitor and battery combination. The battery sets up a Electric field in the wire that polarizes the capacitor with equal but opposite charge. Then when the capacitor is fully charged the current goes to zero.

    Adding a light bulb is the equivalent of adding resistance. So the Capacitor is never fully charged when it is having power drawn from it by the bulb. When the battery is disconnected the voltage across the capacitor is tapped into and then the capacitor eventually looses charge and potential difference (Voltage). The charge and voltage go to zero and the bulb shuts off.

    The battery has lost a small amount of it's EMF because it charged the capacitor and the light bulb. All you did was store charge in the circuit and thus stored voltage. You didn't create energy!

    Capacitors are good for building up a charge or voltage that can be dissipated quickly into a circuit. That is how the flash on a camera works. The battery builds up charge in the capacitor and then you get a flash when you press the button. That flash would not be possible with the low voltage batteries used to power cameras.

    William please stop talking nonsense!
    Ok, I have tested this.

    It is you that have never tested it, and now even if it is true it is too much for you to comprehend.

    If you take a battery and light bulb and light it for one second, the battery will output a certain number of watts. You used the power of the battery to light a bulb for one second. No more or less power then to light the light bulb.

    The wires to carry the power to the light bulb could have carried much more power, but the light bulbs ohms/resistance, slowed the electrons travel through the wire, and drew only what the light bulb could draw.

    Now we take the same light bulb, the same battery, and add a capacitor in series to the original circuit. We light the light bulb for one second. And we get a seconds worth of light. No more power used then in the original circuit. Not a drop more power. Just what can pass through the light bulb. This is in accordance with every single law of electricity and of an electric circuit.

    Sure we drained the battery just like in the first scenario. But alas, our capacitor is ready to give us a free second of light. Yes my friend a free second of light, above that, which can be obtained through the battery and light bulb alone.

    So we have doubled the power possible to the light bulb. But only taken one cycle of power from the battery. Hallelujah!

    This has actually been known since the beginning of time. We have plenty of power. Safely handling it is another story. Benjamin Franklin understood perpetual motion.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I have mentioned where it is simple to disprove all the modern scientists.
    Yes, that's all you've done is mention it. That's all you've done. You have not once actually attempted to disprove anything, nor provided one scrap of evidence against anything. This is for one simple reason: you can't do it.

    I'm willing to change my mind about anything, if provided with evidence; the one thing you don't have.
    Alright step one to believing multi subatomic particle scientists claim, is understanding what gives a quarter inch steel bolt, the ability to hold a 500 pound load. You would have to know where and how such a powerful attraction theory could be dreamed up. You could never get passed that point if you are a scientist.

    What force could be attracting atoms with such force?

    You could shelve the whole multi subatomic particle scientists theory as garbage if there is not a clear answer. Or some demonstration or at least plausible theory.

    So you can can it. Because it will never come. You are preaching the big lie. It was taught to us in horrific clarity. You were never going to receive knowledge, that was the plan.

    Take a crack at defining attraction. I tried to save you the embarrassment. But you want to go on with attraction.





    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I have mentioned where it is simple to disprove all the modern scientists.
    Yes, that's all you've done is mention it. That's all you've done. You have not once actually attempted to disprove anything, nor provided one scrap of evidence against anything. This is for one simple reason: you can't do it.

    I'm willing to change my mind about anything, if provided with evidence; the one thing you don't have.
    Alright step one to believing multi subatomic particle scientists claim, is understanding what gives a quarter inch steel bolt, the ability to hold a 500 pound load. You would have to know where and how such a powerful attraction theory could be dreamed up. You could never get passed that point if you are a scientist.

    What force could be attracting atoms with such force?

    You could shelve the whole multi subatomic particle scientists theory as garbage if there is not a clear answer. Or some demonstration or at least plausible theory.

    So you can can it. Because it will never come. You are preaching the big lie. It was taught to us in horrific clarity. You were never going to receive knowledge, that was the plan.

    Take a crack at defining attraction. I tried to save you the embarrassment. But you want to go on with attraction.





    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    I posted about attraction in the electrical universe thread. Go there. Also bolts have nothing to do with subatomic particles - but we should move this to the electrical universe thread I think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    I posted about attraction in the electrical universe thread. Go there. Also bolts have nothing to do with subatomic particles - but we should move this to the electrical universe thread I think.
    I am afraid you are wasting your time. We all have our experience with this guy. Many have tried reasoning, all of them have failed. I guess, he is even happy that someone is trying to take him seriously. If you want some advice, ignore him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    I posted about attraction in the electrical universe thread. Go there. Also bolts have nothing to do with subatomic particles - but we should move this to the electrical universe thread I think.
    I am afraid you are wasting your time. We all have our experience with this guy. Many have tried reasoning, all of them have failed. I guess, he is even happy that someone is trying to take him seriously. If you want some advice, ignore him.
    Yes I am aware that I am wasting my time, but I'm not bored of it yet. Once I am, he'll just go on my ignore list. :P I'm trying to stop it cluttering up these threads though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    I posted about attraction in the electrical universe thread. Go there. Also bolts have nothing to do with subatomic particles - but we should move this to the electrical universe thread I think.
    I am afraid you are wasting your time. We all have our experience with this guy. Many have tried reasoning, all of them have failed. I guess, he is even happy that someone is trying to take him seriously. If you want some advice, ignore him.
    You never tried reasoning. You tried to ram information into me.

    Rather then to do what I had asked. I mean lets face it if you cannot demonstrate attraction forces, you should not claim to be anywhere near understanding science, if you believe in attraction forces. Explaining attraction forces would be job one of multi subatomic particle scientists.

    Attraction forces are under attack, try to save them. I am sure you can try. Ha-ha.

    Tiny little atoms, with almost no mass, so much attraction?

    I on the other hand use the very old tried and true, ambient radiation pressure, understanding. Proven and demonstrated with no scientific counter intention presented.

    Some said "oh that cannot be because multi subatomic particle scientists believe things are attracted to one another".
    But no one had any scientific grievance against pressure of ambient radiation, holding atoms together. Not one scrap of demonstrative evidence.

    I can demonstrate pressure and push. I cannot demonstrate attraction. No one can, because there is no premise for it.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    William I just said I posted about attraction in the electrical universe thread. Go there and read.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    William I just said I posted about attraction in the electrical universe thread. Go there and read.
    I saw nothing about attraction there. Or anywhere else. Anywhere.

    I have seen some stuff that looks like oatmeal, in a poor gif image, you cannot make anything out in the picture. But they say it conclusively proves a confirmed impossibility exists.

    But nothing anywhere near what forth grade science could not debunk, from the realm of science.

    That is why you will not comment on it.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    That, and it's actually very easy to see how electromagnetism could allow a bolt to hold 500 lbs.

    Electromagnetic forces obey an inverse square law, just like gravity. So if you feel 1 lbs of force at 1 foot, at half a foot, you'd feel 4 lbs of force. At a quarter foot, you'd feel 16 lbs of force. At the seperation of atoms in a piece of metal, even the otherwise very weak forces start to get really strong.

    William, here's a simple question. What would it take for you to admit you are wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I shouldn't say this, but

    William's skepticism of attraction has merit IMHO. How ridiculous I would seem if claiming rivers are attracted to oceans. Of course people long ago must have assumed rivers somehow sense the ocean and seek it out, before we understood a few things are going on to guide a river, predictably and inevitably to the sea. Now, there is something very flat-Earthish about attraction, and I'm honestly unsure which side we're on right now.

    We have been so wrong before.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    I don't entirely disagree with that, but just like in a vacuum where there's not exactly anything pulling (or pushing) on the air, there's still a net force towards the vacuum, which is the definition of attraction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    IMO, the whole discussion is pointless. If I can use Newton's or Einstein's equation to describe and calculate the motion of massive objects, and if I can use Coulomb's Law to calculate the forces on charged particles, that's all that really matters. If I choose to call it "attraction" that's should not be of any concern to anyone else.

    Now try to use William's idiotic ambient radiation theory to do the same thing. It calculates nothing and predicts nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    I don't entirely disagree with that, but just like in a vacuum where there's not exactly anything pulling (or pushing) on the air, there's still a net force towards the vacuum, which is the definition of attraction.

    That is just incorrect.

    A pump, pushes air from a chamber. And then opens that champer to the area, that you wish to create a vacuum in. Air from the area you wish to create a vacuum, is pushed into the empty chamber, and the cycle repeats itself.

    These are the actual happenings.

    There is no attraction, no pulling at all.

    If you look around at buildings you might notice that a lot are coming down. It is because the basics are not understood.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    IMO, the whole discussion is pointless. If I can use Newton's or Einstein's equation to describe and calculate the motion of massive objects, and if I can use Coulomb's Law to calculate the forces on charged particles, that's all that really matters. If I choose to call it "attraction" that's should not be of any concern to anyone else.

    Now try to use William's idiotic ambient radiation theory to do the same thing. It calculates nothing and predicts nothing.
    The elements were classified by ambient radiation and Universal Science. The use of Universal science in the hands of angry men was deemed to dangerous by law makers. Even though I know if all had the same basic understanding, they would not be so angry.

    I think Newton had some cool ideas and formulas. When calculating massive objects, I tend to find that experts don't really know what they are talking about.

    I have called some on their calculations only to find that a small portion of some varying or ramping ratio is being calculated. Not the whole actuality.

    Who here actually calculates asteroid or planets paths? To any really useful purpose?

    When there is a special on the Discovery Channel, four or five specialists in physics, argue what will happen when an asteroid hits. Is there only one of them using the formulas you use? Or do they use the same formulas, but do not even understand what the formulas are or could predict?

    Universal Science was so good at prediction, that perhaps some thought they did have a time machine. Ha-ha. That is what current scientists are trying to mimic, universal scientists.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    I don't entirely disagree with that, but just like in a vacuum where there's not exactly anything pulling (or pushing) on the air, there's still a net force towards the vacuum, which is the definition of attraction.

    That is just incorrect.

    A pump, pushes air from a chamber. And then opens that champer to the area, that you wish to create a vacuum in. Air from the area you wish to create a vacuum, is pushed into the empty chamber, and the cycle repeats itself.

    These are the actual happenings.

    There is no attraction, no pulling at all.

    If you look around at buildings you might notice that a lot are coming down. It is because the basics are not understood.
    You might want to reread what I wrote, and actually read it this time.

    Air is pushed into the empty chamber by what?

    And if you had ever used an ounce of math or physics or even a simple measuring device you would know that measurements include errors. It's these errors that experts argue over when it comes to questions like "will this asteroid hit earth".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    I don't entirely disagree with that, but just like in a vacuum where there's not exactly anything pulling (or pushing) on the air, there's still a net force towards the vacuum, which is the definition of attraction.

    That is just incorrect.

    A pump, pushes air from a chamber. And then opens that champer to the area, that you wish to create a vacuum in. Air from the area you wish to create a vacuum, is pushed into the empty chamber, and the cycle repeats itself.

    These are the actual happenings.

    There is no attraction, no pulling at all.

    If you look around at buildings you might notice that a lot are coming down. It is because the basics are not understood.
    You might want to reread what I wrote, and actually read it this time.

    Air is pushed into the empty chamber by what?

    And if you had ever used an ounce of math or physics or even a simple measuring device you would know that measurements include errors. It's these errors that experts argue over when it comes to questions like "will this asteroid hit earth".
    Air is only pushed into the pumping chamber, by what is left in the area you wish to evacuate. You can never get all the atoms out. Never. The material the container is made of, will evaporate into a perfect vacuum if one existed. But it does not.

    This is elementary school science. That you are missing.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    That is why Brookhaven Labs was guilty of ripping off the government with their plan to evacuate a chamber totally, to view subatomic particles.

    They claimed for their grant that they would create a perfect vacuum. All real scientists knew that was not possible. The government liked the confusion and chaos that Brookhaven Labs was creating. More smoke. And they gave the grant to Brookhaven Labs to build a chamber with a perfect vacuum in it. Ha-ha.

    Real scientists know why you cannot create a perfect vacuum. It is part and parcel of what holds atoms together.
    Stabilizing ambient radiation needs a substance to travel through. Sometimes called a medium. To get from one object, to the next object. Take away an object between two objects and stabilizing ambient radiation will never reach the next object. Causing both remaining objects to evaporate, to fill the void.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    IMO, the whole discussion is pointless. If I can use Newton's or Einstein's equation to describe and calculate the motion of massive objects, and if I can use Coulomb's Law to calculate the forces on charged particles, that's all that really matters. If I choose to call it "attraction" that's should not be of any concern to anyone else.

    Now try to use William's idiotic ambient radiation theory to do the same thing. It calculates nothing and predicts nothing.
    True... true... on the other hand a caution from William's own textbook clipping:
    you will find that electrical men are sometimes rather careless in the use of these words
    and I can say from experience that plenty of electricians do perversely work "backward" wherever they can "make it work anyway". I completely agree with William on his point that "the way things go" is unsettled. Is this anarchy really tolerable?

    Perhaps there is a paradigm that both sides are missing, on which we could agree and move forward. Eh.. vague... oh well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    IMO, the whole discussion is pointless. If I can use Newton's or Einstein's equation to describe and calculate the motion of massive objects, and if I can use Coulomb's Law to calculate the forces on charged particles, that's all that really matters. If I choose to call it "attraction" that's should not be of any concern to anyone else.

    Now try to use William's idiotic ambient radiation theory to do the same thing. It calculates nothing and predicts nothing.
    True... true... on the other hand a caution from William's own textbook clipping:
    you will find that electrical men are sometimes rather careless in the use of these words
    and I can say from experience that plenty of electricians do perversely work "backward" wherever they can "make it work anyway". I completely agree with William on his point that "the way things go" is unsettled. Is this anarchy really tolerable?

    Perhaps there is a paradigm that both sides are missing, on which we could agree and move forward. Eh.. vague... oh well.

    I do not totally understand how individuals claiming to be scientists fear having our knowledge of science exposed. I mean if something is wrong you fix it.

    There seems almost a strange fear that all we know is worthless. And there is some proof to that effect. However some of the experiments that we have done, can be easily repeated, and are done already. Therefore much work towards reality is already done.

    If this is just a battle over who was right and who was wrong, with whole generations of real scientists flushed down the proverbial toilet, just a trivial detail.
    I have serious doubts if any of these types will help science in anyway in the future. At least without some reform or remorse. I mean if we are going to go down the path of Socrates, a hard, man path, of lumps and bumps, lets not try to do it. Lets just do it.

    I like that you grab onto something like a pit bull. Ha-ha.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Billy,

    You're babbling. I have no idea what you are trying to say. I don't think you do either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    All I can say is that if there were something wrong, people would fix it. That's the underlying principle of science (aka, the scientific method).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    That, and it's actually very easy to see how electromagnetism could allow a bolt to hold 500 lbs.

    Electromagnetic forces obey an inverse square law, just like gravity. So if you feel 1 lbs of force at 1 foot, at half a foot, you'd feel 4 lbs of force. At a quarter foot, you'd feel 16 lbs of force. At the seperation of atoms in a piece of metal, even the otherwise very weak forces start to get really strong.

    William, here's a simple question. What would it take for you to admit you are wrong?
    Some sort of demonstration or even a reasonable theory of attraction.

    The guys who invented your science, on the run. Were caught with their pants down on this. They never even gave it a thought. All the other real scientists knew this already. And they tried in many ways to avoid a confrontation. I still place the blame with universal scientists though. For not taking a stand against the law makers . They attacked the poor scientists instead. Probably because they never expected anything from their servants in Washington. By actual demonstration.

    I have seen electromagnetism display those kinds of forces however they are always repulsive forces. Repulsion induction forces. During magneforming processes.

    But I have never seen electromagnets move towards anything with a force of 500 pounds per 0.0490625 square inches. Even the latest magnetic security door latches hold with about 1500 pounds if I am not mistaken. I have one here. That is over a few square inches of contact.

    The actuality, is that matter can and does achieve those levels of tenacity, because matter is under pressure. The atoms cannot pull on each other though. But if you have some reason to believe attraction is real, I will listen to it.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    If you look at sodium metal it has a melting point of about 200 degrees Fahrenheit and a boiling point of about 1621 degrees Fahrenheit.

    Yet if you put it into a good vacuum, it will boil off.

    That might help to show the tremendous influence pressure has upon atoms. And that you cannot separate two objects with nothing. They will start to boil off.









    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Two things.

    First, I'd like to point out, again, that you've simply ignored everyone's attempts to decribe attraction to you.

    Second, it's well known that pressure changes the melting and boiling points of matter. Look up "triple point" sometimes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Two things.

    First, I'd like to point out, again, that you've simply ignored everyone's attempts to decribe attraction to you.

    Second, it's well known that pressure changes the melting and boiling points of matter. Look up "triple point" sometimes.
    Then re-post it once and for all. So we can either be enlightened or get a very good laugh. I saw you post nothing that even remotely would stand in science as proof.

    There is no basis or proof of attraction. The force multi subatomic particle scientists need to promote their theory. Yet attraction cannot exist in this universe. Magnets are only pushed together, or pushed apart.

    You do agree that there is zero pulling going on in a vacuum pump? Because that is easy to demonstrate.

    You do agree that metals with very high boiling points evaporate into a partial vacuum? What makes you believe that if a partial vacuum escalates boiling exponentially, that it would not take place, with even higher temperature metals? If an even greater vacuum was created.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Let me define attraction for you: A net motion towards something, either a point, a region or an object.

    In a vacuum, there is an area of low pressure and an area of high pressure. Because there are more particles in the area of high pressure, there are more particles crossing the boundary one way than there are going the other. Therefore, there is a net motion towards the region of low pressure. Therefore, the air is attracted to the region of low pressure. Simple isn't it.

    By the way, if you think anything is simple to demonstrate, please actually do so.

    And no, I don't think that metals simply evaporate even in a total vacuum, at least not without a strong source of heat as well, nor did I say that a vacuum changes anything exponentially (not that I'm even sure you know what the word means).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Let me define attraction for you: A net motion towards something, either a point, a region or an object.

    In a vacuum, there is an area of low pressure and an area of high pressure. Because there are more particles in the area of high pressure, there are more particles crossing the boundary one way than there are going the other. Therefore, there is a net motion towards the region of low pressure. Therefore, the air is attracted to the region of low pressure. Simple isn't it.

    By the way, if you think anything is simple to demonstrate, please actually do so.

    And no, I don't think that metals simply evaporate even in a total vacuum, at least not without a strong source of heat as well, nor did I say that a vacuum changes anything exponentially (not that I'm even sure you know what the word means).

    No way. There is pressure in the area with the vacuum, and more pressure in the area under normal pressure.

    The atoms are only pushed into the vacuum. Not pulled at all.

    There is a repulsion actually between atoms. Only ambient radiation holds them together.

    It is like a balloon in a vacuum chamber. As you create a vacuum the balloon, expands. The atoms in the balloon push on the rubber walls of the balloon and expand the balloon.

    You can note that if you put a hole in the balloon the balloon does not expand. That is because you need the atoms in the balloon to press on the walls of the balloon to expand the balloon.

    I was just removing the variable of the walls of the balloon. It is in fact the atoms in the balloon pushing outwards on the balloon in a vacuum chamber that expand it. Not the vacuum pulling at the walls.

    There is tons of equipment, technical measuring devices, and pumps that are engineered with this in mind.

    I would not argue this so much. Just give it some time to roll around.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Let me define attraction for you: A net motion towards something, either a point, a region or an object.

    In a vacuum, there is an area of low pressure and an area of high pressure. Because there are more particles in the area of high pressure, there are more particles crossing the boundary one way than there are going the other. Therefore, there is a net motion towards the region of low pressure. Therefore, the air is attracted to the region of low pressure. Simple isn't it.

    By the way, if you think anything is simple to demonstrate, please actually do so.

    And no, I don't think that metals simply evaporate even in a total vacuum, at least not without a strong source of heat as well, nor did I say that a vacuum changes anything exponentially (not that I'm even sure you know what the word means).
    But you do believe that sodium with a boiling point of 1600 plus degrees Fahrenheit does boil at room temperature, in a moderate vacuum?

    I am saying that the best vacuum here on earth, is not even close to a perfect vacuum. So you can have a tungsten chamber and it will evaporate into a perfect or nearing perfect vacuum.

    The reason is that stabilizing ambient radiation cannot jump gaps of perfect vacuum. The electrons would be repelled before reaching the next object. This lack of matter creating, stabilizing ambient radiation, causes the target matter to start to boil off into the near perfect vacuum.

    We learned how to make subzero bombs and all kinds of great stuff, with the understanding of ambient radiation. I am fearful you guys never had a kids life.

    I think Harold was born grumpy. Ha-ha.

    Without matter, particles cannot and will not travel to the next object.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    No. I don't believe you can boil sodium or any other metal with a vacuum alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    No. I don't believe you can boil sodium or any other metal with a vacuum alone.
    Maybe you should get out of the laboratory and check out life. I posted a link to a sodium experiment. There are a lot of sodium vapor lamps around. It is sodium metal vapor in a vacuum. It can be lit with radio waves. Just like mercury vapor can.





    Here is the whole link.

    http://www.rockwelder.com/History/WorldsFair/WF.htm

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Could you see mercury with a boiling point of 356.73 Celsius 674.1 Fahrenheit boiling with 15 psi less pressure on it?


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Low pressure sodium (LPS) lamps, also known as sodium oxide (SOX) lamps, consist of an outer vacuum envelope of glass coated with an infrared reflecting layer of indium tin oxide, a semiconductor material that allows the visible light wavelengths out and keeps the infrared (heat) back. It has two inner borosilicate glass U-pipes that hold solid sodium and a small amount of neon and argon gas Penning mixture to start the gas discharge, so when the lamp is turned on it emits a dim red/pink light to warm the sodium metal and within a few minutes it turns into the common bright orange color as the sodium metal vaporizes.
    It's not the low pressure.

    And as for mercury, I'm not 100% sure, but I'd bet 15 psi difference wouldn't be enough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Low pressure sodium (LPS) lamps, also known as sodium oxide (SOX) lamps, consist of an outer vacuum envelope of glass coated with an infrared reflecting layer of indium tin oxide, a semiconductor material that allows the visible light wavelengths out and keeps the infrared (heat) back. It has two inner borosilicate glass U-pipes that hold solid sodium and a small amount of neon and argon gas Penning mixture to start the gas discharge, so when the lamp is turned on it emits a dim red/pink light to warm the sodium metal and within a few minutes it turns into the common bright orange color as the sodium metal vaporizes.
    It's not the low pressure.

    And as for mercury, I'm not 100% sure, but I'd bet 15 psi difference wouldn't be enough.

    They do not talk about this stuff much. Because it will ring bells with, would be, real scientists. That science is currently under attack. We are in the dark ages again.

    Mercury boils off in a vacuum. Just about anything boils off to some extent in a good vacuum. I would be the first to say that we are probably the few talking about it. Openly.

    The tubes the fellow was lighting up with a weak radio signal, are just vapor of metals, and perhaps a trace noble gas.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Low pressure sodium (LPS) lamps, also known as sodium oxide (SOX) lamps, consist of an outer vacuum envelope of glass coated with an infrared reflecting layer of indium tin oxide, a semiconductor material that allows the visible light wavelengths out and keeps the infrared (heat) back. It has two inner borosilicate glass U-pipes that hold solid sodium and a small amount of neon and argon gas Penning mixture to start the gas discharge, so when the lamp is turned on it emits a dim red/pink light to warm the sodium metal and within a few minutes it turns into the common bright orange color as the sodium metal vaporizes.
    It's not the low pressure.

    And as for mercury, I'm not 100% sure, but I'd bet 15 psi difference wouldn't be enough.
    15 psi is just over one atmosphere of pressure. There is a lot more pressure upon things. But we can only draw off about 14.7 psi of it, here on earth.

    Before things start to boil. A maximum vacuum is considered minus 14.7 pounds per square inch. However a perfect vacuum is only a theory. The best vacuum pumps go down to about thirty inches of mercury. Which is 14.7 psi.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Mercury boils off in a vacuum. Just about anything boils off to some extent in a good vacuum.
    Can you demonstrate this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Mercury boils off in a vacuum. Just about anything boils off to some extent in a good vacuum.
    Can you demonstrate this?
    I suppose I could. If you do not feel there is any proof of this already. But look around first at all the proof. Because I do have other things to do.

    You do not feel the tubes with a vacuum and metal gases posted in those links are for real? They were excited by radio waves. The sodium glowed yellow the mercury glows powder blue.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Low pressure sodium (LPS) lamps, also known as sodium oxide (SOX) lamps, consist of an outer vacuum envelope of glass coated with an infrared reflecting layer of indium tin oxide, a semiconductor material that allows the visible light wavelengths out and keeps the infrared (heat) back. It has two inner borosilicate glass U-pipes that hold solid sodium and a small amount of neon and argon gas Penning mixture to start the gas discharge, so when the lamp is turned on it emits a dim red/pink light to warm the sodium metal and within a few minutes it turns into the common bright orange color as the sodium metal vaporizes.
    It's not the low pressure.

    And as for mercury, I'm not 100% sure, but I'd bet 15 psi difference wouldn't be enough.
    Those are probably high pressure sodium lamps. There are low pressure sodium lamps as was demonstrated some 70 plus years ago.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    No, those were the low pressure sodium lamps. The high pressure ones were further down the page.

    And what proof? I'm saying that without the electricity, a vacuum alone will not cause solid metal to evaporate. I'm unsure about mercury, though I doubt it would boil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Let me define attraction for you: A net motion towards something, either a point, a region or an object.

    In a vacuum, there is an area of low pressure and an area of high pressure. Because there are more particles in the area of high pressure, there are more particles crossing the boundary one way than there are going the other. Therefore, there is a net motion towards the region of low pressure. Therefore, the air is attracted to the region of low pressure. Simple isn't it.

    By the way, if you think anything is simple to demonstrate, please actually do so.

    And no, I don't think that metals simply evaporate even in a total vacuum, at least not without a strong source of heat as well, nor did I say that a vacuum changes anything exponentially (not that I'm even sure you know what the word means).
    You did not out right say the particles in abundance under higher measurable pressure and compaction, are attracted to the lower pressure less dense particles?
    And you did not say the high pressure atoms were pushed to the lower pressure area?
    But rather you said they move across some boundary? That sounds like they are human with emotions.

    Is this boundary in the Twilight Zone? Ha-ha.

    The atoms of air under higher pressure are only pushed to the lower pressure area. Not attracted at all. Just like relieving pressure from a spring. There is still repulsion from the low pressure atoms in a vacuum. Just less pressure.

    Attraction is the ultimate illusion in our universe.

    But in the end, you sneak in, that an area with less particles, under less pressure, "attracts" the higher density particles.

    Did you mean to say apparently attract? To the human eye. Or by what looks like them moving together. Because we know that there is no such thing as attraction force. Only pressure forces that often look to the human eye like attraction.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, do you think it might be a dog?

    BTW, molecules of air move around randomly, bumping into things causing pressure. If you can imagine what the area between a high pressure area and a low pressure area looks like just after a barrier has been removed, all the particles that were bumping into the barrier instead are passing through where it used to be. Now, do you disagree that there are more particles on the side with higher pressure? Do you disagree that more particles would be crossing from the higher pressure side to the lower pressure side? Do you disagree that, on average, there is more motion into the low pressure area than out of it? What exactly are you disagreeing with?

    William, attraction is defined at the macro scale. In many cases, what's going on at the micro scale is very different. That doesn't make attraction any less real.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by GenerationE

    The loss is in the battery McCormick. If you would actually test the things you talk about you would see you are wrong. I come to this forum daily and expect to find something interesting to talk or debate about. Instead I usually find you trying to debate some simple law or concept in physics.

    You do not get a 'free cycle of power' from a capacitor and battery combination. The battery sets up a Electric field in the wire that polarizes the capacitor with equal but opposite charge. Then when the capacitor is fully charged the current goes to zero.

    Adding a light bulb is the equivalent of adding resistance. So the Capacitor is never fully charged when it is having power drawn from it by the bulb. When the battery is disconnected the voltage across the capacitor is tapped into and then the capacitor eventually looses charge and potential difference (Voltage). The charge and voltage go to zero and the bulb shuts off.

    The battery has lost a small amount of it's EMF because it charged the capacitor and the light bulb. All you did was store charge in the circuit and thus stored voltage. You didn't create energy!

    Capacitors are good for building up a charge or voltage that can be dissipated quickly into a circuit. That is how the flash on a camera works. The battery builds up charge in the capacitor and then you get a flash when you press the button. That flash would not be possible with the low voltage batteries used to power cameras.

    William please stop talking nonsense!
    Ok, I have tested this.

    It is you that have never tested it, and now even if it is true it is too much for you to comprehend.

    If you take a battery and light bulb and light it for one second, the battery will output a certain number of watts. You used the power of the battery to light a bulb for one second. No more or less power then to light the light bulb.

    The wires to carry the power to the light bulb could have carried much more power, but the light bulbs ohms/resistance, slowed the electrons travel through the wire, and drew only what the light bulb could draw.

    Now we take the same light bulb, the same battery, and add a capacitor in series to the original circuit. We light the light bulb for one second. And we get a seconds worth of light. No more power used then in the original circuit. Not a drop more power. Just what can pass through the light bulb. This is in accordance with every single law of electricity and of an electric circuit.

    Sure we drained the battery just like in the first scenario. But alas, our capacitor is ready to give us a free second of light. Yes my friend a free second of light, above that, which can be obtained through the battery and light bulb alone.

    So we have doubled the power possible to the light bulb. But only taken one cycle of power from the battery. Hallelujah!

    This has actually been known since the beginning of time. We have plenty of power. Safely handling it is another story. Benjamin Franklin understood perpetual motion.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Wrong! if you can't understand it in the way I just explained it, then I think you may never grasp it. But I know factually because I have tested it, that a battery does not charge a capacitor for free. It loses some of its charge in the negative terminal, therefore decreasing potential difference V or voltage.

    I can understand how you may debate attraction as unreal because your thinking about it as lack of repulsion, Lack of repulsion and attraction look exactly the same so your just calling attraction by a different name. But how do deceive yourself into believing capacitors are charged by batteries with no penalty?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    William,

    In other posts you have indicated that you work with electricity as part of your job. Please stop immediately. If you have an electrician's license, turn it in. Seriously. If you do not understand that the battery supplies current to charge the capacitor, you do not have a clue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Senior Booms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The perceptual schematic known as earth
    Posts
    361
    In a Finite universe with Finite mass Infinte is impossible and as such Infinite energy is impossible, However the sheer size of the universe is beyond our comprehension and therefore the finite number and infinite become blurred


    Onto your more likely question of is perpetual motion possible,
    Conservation of Energy states Energy cannot be made or destroyed only moved and transformed therefore conventional basis for perpetual motion is impossible and beyond simply improbable


    However most self proclaimed geniuses like to think themselves above and beyond the basic laws of physics meaning they create, unique if not pointless machines like a Self powering Lightbulb (only possible if it doesn't emit light) or an overbalancing wheel which appear to have achieved the aims of Perpetuating motion, but are simply complex clockwork

    the only way to create a machine of true Perpetual motion, somethingthat generates energy beyond that which is required to power itself it a theory of a theory, in that it could only be a theory if certain theories are proven, aPerpetual motion can exist in the Quantum of Quantum theories and outside the Finite universe, As a result The great thinkers have come up with a loophole


    A generator that untilises a powersouce normally outside our grasp and that is large enough to provide an apparently limitless supply of energy are generally regarded as Perpetual motion, The sources they seek to exploit are usually one of two things, Gravity, or Magnetism



    Oh and read about Orffyreus he is one of the few men to have possibly created a Perpetual motion machine and he did so in the 18th century
    It's not how many questions you ask, but the answers you get - Booms

    This is the Acadamy of Science! we don't need to 'prove' anything!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, do you think it might be a dog?

    BTW, molecules of air move around randomly, bumping into things causing pressure. If you can imagine what the area between a high pressure area and a low pressure area looks like just after a barrier has been removed, all the particles that were bumping into the barrier instead are passing through where it used to be. Now, do you disagree that there are more particles on the side with higher pressure? Do you disagree that more particles would be crossing from the higher pressure side to the lower pressure side? Do you disagree that, on average, there is more motion into the low pressure area than out of it? What exactly are you disagreeing with?

    William, attraction is defined at the macro scale. In many cases, what's going on at the micro scale is very different. That doesn't make attraction any less real.
    If it barks like a dog, and bites like a dog, is it a duck?

    We know that the compressed pen spring between our fingers, is not attracted to our fingers. Because if we slowly move one of our fingers off the end of the compressed spring it shoots across the room. So we can certainly rule out attraction in anyway shape or from. We know that the spring is compressed and wants to expand.

    As we know is the case with air. If we compress air, to one atmosphere, it will try to expand, if it finds a place that has less pressure it will expand and push its way to an equilibrium in the area with less pressure. Just like the pen spring.

    I am almost sorry all these real and demonstrable things are so real and true, because it just smashes the multi subatomic particle scientists basic premise. To a useless mess of what looks like backed up sewage.

    Alright I am really very happy about it. Ha-ha.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    You can't even read can you?

    I said that it is attraction. Just because it's also something else doesn't mean it's not still attraction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    You can't even read can you?

    I said that it is attraction. Just because it's also something else doesn't mean it's not still attraction.

    This is a science forum, not a fantasy poem forum, where words can have mystical magical meaning.

    I think you know that scientifically, nothing is attracted to anything. It may seem like it is being attracted, however scientifically it is only pushed.

    It is only pushed. And I believe you know why I am one of the few that discusses it. Because it was the basis of multi subatomic particle scientists theory, to call atoms structures, that attracted electrons to the proton with an imaginary attraction force, to end universal science.

    Universal science that said, it is ambient radiation electrons that pound spherical structures of electrons called protons, and keep them under pressure.

    If I put a powerful magnet under a piece of cardboard, and move a dime towards you, is the dime attracted to you? It may seem that way. And it may look that way. However we know that the dime was moved by the magnet. The dime was not attracted to you.

    Do you agree that is how matter works?



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Do you seriously think that a planet can't also be a rock and can't also be matter and can't also be atoms?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Do you seriously think that a planet can't also be a rock and can't also be matter and can't also be atoms?

    Earth cannot be a rock technically, unless you melt it into a single somewhat uniform single rock. Or keep it hot and mixing and call it a molten rock.

    The earth is made of matter, atoms. It is not an atom, but could be called matter. Or a sphere of atoms.

    Just like a car is not an atom. Or a molecule. It is made with atoms and molecules.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by GenerationE
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by GenerationE

    The loss is in the battery McCormick. If you would actually test the things you talk about you would see you are wrong. I come to this forum daily and expect to find something interesting to talk or debate about. Instead I usually find you trying to debate some simple law or concept in physics.

    You do not get a 'free cycle of power' from a capacitor and battery combination. The battery sets up a Electric field in the wire that polarizes the capacitor with equal but opposite charge. Then when the capacitor is fully charged the current goes to zero.

    Adding a light bulb is the equivalent of adding resistance. So the Capacitor is never fully charged when it is having power drawn from it by the bulb. When the battery is disconnected the voltage across the capacitor is tapped into and then the capacitor eventually looses charge and potential difference (Voltage). The charge and voltage go to zero and the bulb shuts off.

    The battery has lost a small amount of it's EMF because it charged the capacitor and the light bulb. All you did was store charge in the circuit and thus stored voltage. You didn't create energy!

    Capacitors are good for building up a charge or voltage that can be dissipated quickly into a circuit. That is how the flash on a camera works. The battery builds up charge in the capacitor and then you get a flash when you press the button. That flash would not be possible with the low voltage batteries used to power cameras.

    William please stop talking nonsense!
    Ok, I have tested this.

    It is you that have never tested it, and now even if it is true it is too much for you to comprehend.

    If you take a battery and light bulb and light it for one second, the battery will output a certain number of watts. You used the power of the battery to light a bulb for one second. No more or less power then to light the light bulb.

    The wires to carry the power to the light bulb could have carried much more power, but the light bulbs ohms/resistance, slowed the electrons travel through the wire, and drew only what the light bulb could draw.

    Now we take the same light bulb, the same battery, and add a capacitor in series to the original circuit. We light the light bulb for one second. And we get a seconds worth of light. No more power used then in the original circuit. Not a drop more power. Just what can pass through the light bulb. This is in accordance with every single law of electricity and of an electric circuit.

    Sure we drained the battery just like in the first scenario. But alas, our capacitor is ready to give us a free second of light. Yes my friend a free second of light, above that, which can be obtained through the battery and light bulb alone.

    So we have doubled the power possible to the light bulb. But only taken one cycle of power from the battery. Hallelujah!

    This has actually been known since the beginning of time. We have plenty of power. Safely handling it is another story. Benjamin Franklin understood perpetual motion.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Wrong! if you can't understand it in the way I just explained it, then I think you may never grasp it. But I know factually because I have tested it, that a battery does not charge a capacitor for free. It loses some of its charge in the negative terminal, therefore decreasing potential difference V or voltage.

    I can understand how you may debate attraction as unreal because your thinking about it as lack of repulsion, Lack of repulsion and attraction look exactly the same so your just calling attraction by a different name. But how do deceive yourself into believing capacitors are charged by batteries with no penalty?

    I am talking about putting a battery in series with a light bulb, a capacitor and a battery. Lighting the light bulb with, the draw of the capacitor filling. Since the light bulb is the high ohm device in the system. The light bulb will limit current to what ever it takes to light a light bulb. So, you do not use any more power to charge the capacitor then you do to light the light bulb.

    And when you are done, lightning a light bulb, with that system, you have a charged capacitor. Charged for free while lightning your light bulb.
    If you use a capacitor sized to your light bulb and battery voltage and amperage. It is charged for free with no more power then it takes to light a light bulb.

    The key word is series. Not parallel. The circuit you are discussing is a parallel circuit. You would need to understand ohms law in order to understand what I am saying.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    The key word is series. Not parallel. The circuit you are discussing is a parallel circuit. You would need to understand ohms law in order to understand what I am saying.
    Okay, William. Let me explain where you went wrong.

    Here is a web page with a Java applet of a RC circuit just as you describe.

    http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=31

    Your mistake was that you failed to calculate the battery power and the resistor power at each point in the charging cycle.

    The applet shows the circuit current and the capacitor voltage. The resistor voltage (not plotted) is the difference between the capacitor voltage and the battery voltage.

    At the start of the charging cycle, right after closing the switch, the instantaneous battery power is equal to 10 volts multiplied by the current. The power to the resistor is also equal to 10 volts multiplied by the current, since the capacitor voltage starts at zero.

    But what happens later on, say when the capacitor voltage is 5v and the resistor also has 5v across it? The instantaneous battery power decreases but is still equal to 10v times the current but the resistor power is only 5v times the current. So at the end of the cycle the power is going into the capacitor, not the resistor. There is no free lunch.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    The key word is series. Not parallel. The circuit you are discussing is a parallel circuit. You would need to understand ohms law in order to understand what I am saying.
    Okay, William. Let me explain where you went wrong.

    Here is a web page with a Java applet of a RC circuit just as you describe.

    http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=31

    Your mistake was that you failed to calculate the battery power and the resistor power at each point in the charging cycle.

    The applet shows the circuit current and the capacitor voltage. The resistor voltage (not plotted) is the difference between the capacitor voltage and the battery voltage.

    At the start of the charging cycle, right after closing the switch, the instantaneous battery power is equal to 10 volts multiplied by the current. The power to the resistor is also equal to 10 volts multiplied by the current, since the capacitor voltage starts at zero.

    But what happens later on, say when the capacitor voltage is 5v and the resistor also has 5v across it? The instantaneous battery power decreases but is still equal to 10v times the current but the resistor power is only 5v times the current. So at the end of the cycle the power is going into the capacitor, not the resistor. There is no free lunch.
    I really thought you guys were joking or just being stupid. But you really do not understand this?

    An AC current is not a steady voltage and we power our homes with it just fine. AC current is a reversing polarity current, as well as a ramped current.

    When you put those three devices in series, a battery, light bulb, and capacitor, no more power then the power that passes through the lit light bulb is drawn from the battery. Whatever that power is. We don't even have to know what it is.

    So after you size your battery, capacitor and light bulb, if you are happy with the light from the light bulb, despite the ramping effect, like we get in our AC current.

    Then when you are done using the energy it takes to light the light bulb in series with the battery and capacitor. You can remove the battery, from the circuit. The capacitor, will have taken on a charge that seems to light the light bulb just like the battery did. Totally free power. Over that of the same light bulb and battery, without the capacitor in the circuit.

    At least here in my strange world. Ha-ha.

    You do not have to use a battery that fluctuates its voltage if that tiny bit of power makes you nervous. You can use a fixed power. And use it for only one half cycle. And let your capacitor supply the other half cycle. Doubling your power.

    You can also tune the circuit so it uses an exact amount of power, to power a circuit through and into a capacitor big enough. And then you can use the capacitor that was charged while delivering the first half cycle of energy, and exactly match the first cycle, for free.


    There are about fifty or sixty ways to make power, from power. Or double your power. This is one.


    What experiment would you want to see to prove it or disprove it. I have just about any piece of electrical equipment available for me to use.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    What experiment would you want to see to prove it or disprove it. I have just about any piece of electrical equipment available for me to use.
    You will have to keep a light lit a few days without draining the battery. Either that or blow something up like you keep saying will happen, but doesn't.

    Oh by the way, I disproved your perpetual motion using basic electricity. Power = volts x current. It doesn't get any simpler than that. You are pretending like it didn't happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    What experiment would you want to see to prove it or disprove it. I have just about any piece of electrical equipment available for me to use.
    How about two separate LED circuits. Each with a fresh battery. One includes whatever capacitor arrangement you think will give free light, and we'll see what happens.

    Or if you're really confident, use a pair of flashlights - your modification will pay for itself right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Get a simple time-lapse capable video camera. Set it to take images every maybe 10-15 minutes. Set up a circuit like you say using the smallest battery that'll still light the light. Record until the light goes out. It will, and although I don't know the formulas, others on this forum should be able to tell you about how long it should take. If you can show it burning for at least twice as long, then I think everyone would be at least interested in recreating your experiment.

    Edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Earth cannot be a rock technically, unless you melt it into a single somewhat uniform single rock. Or keep it hot and mixing and call it a molten rock.

    The earth is made of matter, atoms. It is not an atom, but could be called matter. Or a sphere of atoms.

    Just like a car is not an atom. Or a molecule. It is made with atoms and molecules.
    I didn't say atom, I said atoms. Obviously if the earth is made up of atoms, it is atoms. I mean, that's obvious enough that typing it out seems completely pointless. (Also, I was saying rock in the collective sense.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    William

    Here is a real easy one. Get two d-c watt-hour meters. Connect one to measure the watt-hours of the battery and another to measure the watt-hours of the resistor. If you measure more watt-hours in the resistor than the battery, there's your perpetual motion. Or if you measure equal power on the charging cycle you have proved perpetual motion, because you know you will get some extra on the discharge cycle.

    But we already know the answer, which I explained before. When you connect to measure the battery watt-hrs your voltage connection will be on the battery. When you connect to measure the resistor watt-hrs your voltage connection will be on the resistor. The current will be the same for each. The battery voltage will always be equal or greater during the capacitor charging cycle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    William

    Here is a real easy one. Get two d-c watt-hour meters. Connect one to measure the watt-hours of the battery and another to measure the watt-hours of the resistor. If you measure more watt-hours in the resistor than the battery, there's your perpetual motion. Or if you measure equal power on the charging cycle you have proved perpetual motion, because you know you will get some extra on the discharge cycle.

    But we already know the answer, which I explained before. When you connect to measure the battery watt-hrs your voltage connection will be on the battery. When you connect to measure the resistor watt-hrs your voltage connection will be on the resistor. The current will be the same for each. The battery voltage will always be equal or greater during the capacitor charging cycle.

    You guys need to really go and do this. Because you are just totally missing the simplicity of it.

    When you light your light bulb with the battery, light and capacitor in circuit, you will drain the battery. But you have already gotten the work out of the battery by lighting your light bulb for whatever time your light bulb battery and capacitor can light the bulb in series with the capacitor. No more power then that which can pass through the light bulb is used.

    When you are done lighting the bulb with the battery and capacitor in series with the bulb. A circuit that takes no more energy then the bulb can use. You will find that you charged your capacitor for free. And can light the bulb again without the battery, often as long or longer then you did the first time around. It pretty much doubles the watts taken from the battery, or power source.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    All right, I told you what you have to do to prove it, and you're not doing it. I'm done with you, you old blowhard.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    All right, I told you what you have to do to prove it, and you're not doing it. I'm done with you, you old blowhard.
    Harold the bulb is only going to draw the exact power, the battery will output. Despite the capacitor in series. So we only use the power from the battery, to light the bulb. Whatever that power is. We do not even need to know what the watts are. The capacitor is filled for free.

    You do not need two watt meters to prove that. That is ohms law.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Ohm's Law is I = V/R. How does that apply?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Ohm's Law is I = V/R. How does that apply?

    The amps from the battery, are going to be equal to the volts supplied by the battery divided by the ohms of the bulb in the circuit.

    The capacitor is just the drain to create the circuit. It is not capable of using current, with the bulb in the circuit. It is the reason for the current to flow. The light bulb is going to use the current, by creating light.

    The watts going through the bulb will be equal to the watts taken from the battery.

    When you are done with lighting the light bulb with the capacitor in the series circuit. You can remove your battery, and you will be able to light your light bulb again almost exactly the same way. With the power from the capacitor, that was created for free.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    174
    hehehe...

    So he likes Ohm's law.. maybe he was in league with Benjamin Franklin?....





    There is a switching method involved with using a capacitor like that.
    Otherwise the Capacitor cancels the supply when it gets fully charged.

    Try doing a Thevenin's when:
    1. While capacitor is charging
    2. Capacitor is fully charged

    I hope you get the picture.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Ohm's Law is I = V/R. How does that apply?

    The amps from the battery, are going to be equal to the volts supplied by the battery divided by the ohms of the bulb in the circuit.

    The capacitor is just the drain to create the circuit. It is not capable of using current, with the bulb in the circuit. It is the reason for the current to flow. The light bulb is going to use the current, by creating light.

    The watts going through the bulb will be equal to the watts taken from the battery.

    When you are done with lighting the light bulb with the capacitor in the series circuit. You can remove your battery, and you will be able to light your light bulb again almost exactly the same way. With the power from the capacitor, that was created for free.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    No. The capacitor is not charged for free. There is energy required to charge the capacitor, and that energy comes from the battery. The energy stored in the capacitor is 1/2 cv^2, and comes from the battery during the charging transient.
    This is a standard elementary electrical engineering problem, and any beginning EE student should be able to solve it. You have not discovered a violation of conservation of energy, nor have you discovered any means whereby you could realize perpetual motion.

    Your statements are simply nonsense, as usual.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •