LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksFind an error: LINK DELETED
January 3rd, 2010, 11:15 AM
Find an error: LINK DELETED
This topic have nothing to make here, it is not pseudo-sciences.
perpetuum_mobile/engine :|
Describe it please.
Michel, if you would like to discuss your ideas here please give us a reasonable outline using your links as a support. Don't merely command us to look for errors. We're not here to give your website traffic nor to proof read for you.
I do not make pub of my website, I gave link to avoid making copy/paste.Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Look at the links in my profiles PLEASE. (Engine 01 11357 )Describe it please.
I read it before the link was deleted, or tried to. The English translation was terrible. I couldn't make any sense out of it. Being a perpetual motion device, it is most certainly pseudoscience.
Sorry, I do not speak English. The text is translated by computer.
Then what you need is a translator. Preferably one with some knowledge of physics. I'm sorry but you can't expect us to try and figure out what you mean.Sorry, I do not speak English. The text is translated by computer.
I have had a look at his pages in French (not very good spelling either).
Apparently, another naive person who thinks that you can increase the volume of a submerged object at little or no energy cost, then use its increased buoyancy to do some work.
He (or she?) combines this naive thinking with enough complicated mechanics that go some way to obscuring the fundamental fallacy.
Bottom line: waste of good brain power.
Kind of like these, I suppose.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/bellows.htm
It is you the naive person, who believes in the "law" of conservation, without understanding functioning and checking/proving calculations.
I do not believe, me makes arithmetical calculations and I analyse results.
Perhaps it is complicated for you, but in reality it is almost also simple as a bicycle.He (or she?) combines this naive thinking with enough complicated mechanics that go some way to obscuring the fundamental fallacy.
Peut-être c'est compliqué pour vous, mais en réalité c'est presque aussi simple que un vélo.
Thousands of people invent free energy and perpetual motion machines every year. Dozens of them come to this site seeking validation from scientists and enthusiasts. None of them has ever built a working example of such a device. None that I have seen have ever admitted any error on their part. Most respond to criticism with the assumption that we are failing to grasp some salient truth, or worse, they cry that there is a conspiracy (of unknown motive) to silence them.It is you the naive person, who believes in the "law" of conservation, without understanding functioning and checking/proving calculations.
I do not believe, me makes arithmetical calculations and I analyse results.
Perhaps it is complicated for you, but in reality it is almost also simple as a bicycle.He (or she?) combines this naive thinking with enough complicated mechanics that go some way to obscuring the fundamental fallacy.
Peut-être c'est compliqué pour vous, mais en réalité c'est presque aussi simple que un vélo.
Michel, it makes little sense to ask people to look for errors but then to reject criticism. Did you merely come here expecting people to tell you that you are right?
If the preservation law is true/works, there should be an error.
If here there is no error, the preservation law is not the law.
I personally do not see here an error and ANYBODY yet has not found it in these calculations.
If there is an error, help to find it.
If it here is not present, the perpetuum mobile is invented.
As nearly as I can tell, you have reinvented the buoyant bellows engine. The error is thoroughly explained in the link I provided in my previous message.
Not!
They have no anything with this engine.
Not!
They have no anything with this engine.
OK, build a large engine, connect it to a 20MW power generator, and analyze the results.
Good luck selling your energy to the grid.
D'accord, construisez un grand moteur, connectez-le a une generatrice de 20MW, et analysez les resultats.
Bonne chance avec la vente de votre energie a l'EDF.
(Co będzie jak rosjanie przykręca polakom gaz, czym się pan będzie grzał?)
To turn a generator of 20MW it is necessary to construct a lot of engines, to dispose them online by making them turn the same axle, at the end of which it is possible to put in rotation a powerful generatrice.
Pour tourner une génératrice de 20MW il faut construire beaucoup des moteurs, les disposer en ligne en les faisant tourner la même axe, au bout de quelle on peut mettre en rotation une generatrice puissante.
For whatever reason, Михаил (is that your true name?) is asking how I am going to keep warm when Russia has turned the gas tap off on Poland.(Co będzie jak rosjanie przykręca polakom gaz, czym się pan będzie grzał?)
I don't know, but I know that my energy, if any, will not come from a perpetuum mobile.
I see you have the plan all worked out. So stop wasting your time here, put your money where your mouth is, invest in your own invention and become a millionaire. You won't even have to come back here to say "I told you" - your name will be on all the front pages.
If you can really make your engine work.
http://energie.numeriblog.fr/perpetu..._01_11357.html
- Il faut répondre à une question simple: - comment faire pour dépenser moins d'énergie en levant un poids, qu'il produira en descendant?
- La réponse: - il faut utiliser les forces de la nature. C'est ne pas compliqué - il faut à la fois réunir et isoler deux choses - le travail d'un poids à l'air libre et sous l'eau.
A l'intérieur d'un flotteur la masse qui tombe est à l'air libre.
Pour nous aider la remonter à la hauteur du quelle elle à tombé et économiser/gagner l'énergie, il faut utiliser l'eau (la poussée d'Archimède). Dans un cas on fait tomber la masse à l'air libre (à l'intérieur du flotteur) et dans l'autre, on la monte/ramène la haut avec son flotteur, le quel est sous l'eau. Voila le gain d'énergie.
Par ex.:
A l'intérieur le pois = 100 kg qui tombe/travaille.
Le flotteur avec la masselotte (le poids) "pèse" que 10 kg sous l'eau.
Du haut ver le bas --> 100 kg.
Du bas ver le haut --> 10 kg.
Maintenant c'est clair ?
Pour diminuer la hauteur du flotteur on utilise un levier.
Pour diminuer le poids de la masselotte, on utilise les ressorts à gaz et la pression de l'eau en haut, qu'on à besoin (on utilise) en bas pour vaincre la pression de l'eau, la quelle augmente avec la profondeur.
==================================================
- It is necessary to answer a simple question: - how to spend less energy by raising a weight, which he will produce in a descending line?
- Answer: - it is necessary to use force of nature. It is complicated not - it is necessary to unite at the same time and to isolate two things - the job of a weight outside and under the water.
Inside a float mass which falls is outside.
To help us to take back her up as high as who she in throwing and to economise / earn energy, it is necessary to use the water (the increase of Archimedes). In a case the mass outside (inside the float) is made fall and in other one, it is taken up / brought back top with its float, the which is under the water. Veiled the benefit of energy.
For example:
Indoors the pea = 100 kg which falls / works.
The float with the balance weight (the weight) "weighs" that 10 kg under the water.
Of the high worm the bottom-> 100 kg.
Of the low worm the top-> 10 kg.
Now it is clear?
To diminish the height of the float a lever is used.
To diminish the weight of the balance weight, springs with gas and the pressure of the water above are used, that one at need (they use) down to conquer the pressure of the water, the which augments with the depth.
Here is the error.
The calculations themselves are not so much incorrect as they are misdirected. As the machine turns, one float does work on the water by pushing the piston out while the water does work on the other by pushing it in. They of course are equal, but this work is not transfered to the shaft in any way. Nor is the work transfered from one float to the other. The work is absorbed by the system in the form of heat and increased entropy. Net work is lost. Therefore there can be no energy transfered to the shaft and therefore no work generated.
If you spin the shaft, the machine will spin until friction exhausts the energy input into the shaft, but it will never generate any shaft power.
C'est vrais et faux a la foi.
C'est vrais que les déplacement des masses/pistons ne transmettent pas directement l'effort/travail à l'arbre du moteur. Les masses/poids sont la pour changer le volume des flotteurs, c'est tout.
C'est la différence des volumes des flotteurs (la force d'Archimède) du cote gauche et droit qui fournie le travail a l'arbre du moteur.
================================================== ==
It is true and wrong has faith.
It is true that displacement of masses / pistons do not transmit directly effort / job in the tree of the engine. Masses / weights are to change the volume of floats, it is everything.
It is the difference of the volumes of floats (the force of Archimedes) of quotation left and right that given job has the tree of the engine.
Please write in English, that is the language used on this forum. More to the point, it is the language that cypress addressed you with so it is common courtesy to respond as such. How is cypress supposed to know if you have addressed his arguments properly?
Someone tried something to understand?
P.S. http://www.youtube.com/user/overunit.../0/epLOEaoPMFU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us7YB...elated&search=
Énergie 100% propre!
I've deleted your links. Discuss your ideas on this forum and in English please. You can use links to support your arguments, not in place of them.
Go on just like that and LINK DELETED will never stop.I've deleted your links. Discuss your ideas on this forum and in English please. You can use links to support your arguments, not in place of them.
You foolish man. It will stop very quickly when you are banned by our astute admin team.Go on just like that and LINK DELETED will never stop.I've deleted your links. Discuss your ideas on this forum and in English please. You can use links to support your arguments, not in place of them.
Try to ban the radioactive particles of the Japanese reactors.You foolish man. It will stop very quickly when you are banned by our astute admin team.Go on just like that and LINK DELETED will never stop.I've deleted your links. Discuss your ideas on this forum and in English please. You can use links to support your arguments, not in place of them.
I offer the solutions of replacement of these reactors, but foolishness opposes.
Essaye de bannir les particules radioactives des réacteurs japonais.
Je propose les solutions de remplacement des ces réacteurs, mais la stupidité s'oppose.
And, your replacements don't work nearly as well as a nuclear reactor. Sorry, but your premise is flawed.Try to ban the radioactive particles of the Japanese reactors.You foolish man. It will stop very quickly when you are banned by our astute admin team.Go on just like that and LINK DELETED will never stop.I've deleted your links. Discuss your ideas on this forum and in English please. You can use links to support your arguments, not in place of them.
I offer the solutions of replacement of these reactors, but foolishness opposes.
Essaye de bannir les particules radioactives des réacteurs japonais.
Je propose les solutions de remplacement des ces réacteurs, mais la stupidité s'oppose.
Why would you want to replace the nuclear reactors? A rickety, old fashioned, poorly-maintained reactor took a direct hit from one the most powerful earthquakes in recorded history and all we got was this second-rate nuclear quasi-disaster. No fatalities, no confirmed cases of radiation sickness that I am aware of. To me, this suggests we ought to build better nuclear reactors.Try to ban the radioactive particles of the Japanese reactors.You foolish man. It will stop very quickly when you are banned by our astute admin team.Go on just like that and LINK DELETED will never stop.I've deleted your links. Discuss your ideas on this forum and in English please. You can use links to support your arguments, not in place of them.
I offer the solutions of replacement of these reactors, but foolishness opposes.
Essaye de bannir les particules radioactives des réacteurs japonais.
Je propose les solutions de remplacement des ces réacteurs, mais la stupidité s'oppose.
Also, I can just keep right on deleting your links. Or you could just tell us about your idea here on this forum.
| « ESP online test/game | relationship between meditation, religion, and conciousness » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
