Ectropy and Maxwell's Demon.

[triplock]

This topic, of late, is better than a soap opera. :-)

Chris

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Jim_Mich,

It is clear to me you are out of your depth with your Centrifugal force device, I have told you why it will only run for a short time. In the “real world� gravity and friction will run it down to a stop, and if you try to move the weights against the CF you will run it down even quicker! with no energy or force input to replace the energy loses it will only run for a short time, not a workable system!

So stop this playing with the members and guests, and go ask Fletcher.

Personally I would only try a CF concept in a driven device! With the help of mechanical advantage!

I see no point in hanging this thread out anymore!

Kind regards Trevor

[cloud camper]

Please don't bother Jim right now.

He is frantically rewriting his VB "Proven Runner" program to include some of
that "idiotic" CP.

He's having a little trouble producing positive torque values.

There may have to be some - ahem - slight changes to the Plan.

[ovyyus]

Someone whacked the hornets nest, now there's a bunch of mad frothing critters thrashng around looking for something to kill. No respect at all.

[triplock]

In Jim's defence, I believe that the problem lies with the fact that he is unable to fully explain the principles behind his theory in a public domain, as I'm certain that he is holding back with a view to patent a device that has this operating principle at it's core.

I, personally, do not believe that CF will form a part or all of the energy which drives a wheel past 99% efficency as, imho, it is an impeding force only. But that is only my opinion, so I have no right to dispell Jim's beliefs until it is absolutely proven otherwise.

Likewise, in regards to Trevor's much maligned Multi-Lever principle, it is not for others to disparage to the point of making personal attacks.No individual as the right to do that within this forum because we are all guilty of 'believing' strongly in one theory or another.

Chris

[rlortie]

i'm curious have any of you guys actually sold something you have invented "copyright/patented"or otherwise,i'm not talking about grants etc.for failed projects ,backers funding etc.but actually "sold "something for lets say £20k or over or is it all "hot air"wannabe type talk.?...Good Luck.

while employed with the U S army corps of Engineers, I was credited for a total of five inventions. I could not patent them personally as they were all involved within Corps confines.

One of my inventions was calculated to have saved them over $270,000.00. I received a cash award for each invention based on a percentage of cost savings and utilization. Plus promotions and annual cash awards for "Superior Sustained Performance" aka "SSP" which is an award the Government/Military does not give out lightly.

Ralph

[rlortie]

Someone whacked the hornets nest, not there's a bunch of mad frothing critters thrashng around looking for something to kill. No respect at all.

I wish you would not do that, I hold the rights to misspell. It gives Jim something to start a response post. :-)

[triplock]

'It irritates me when people talk down to me, and assume I don't understand things, and then they attempt to 'educate' me as to how things work. '

:)

[ovyyus]

Ralph, it's probably less about spelling and more about syntax. Although some people clearly have issues with both. Throw a pinch of dyslexia and a slap of religion into the mix and all hope for communication seems lost.

[Ed]

Now come on guys... I know I played my part in all this, but honestly I like and respect Jim and his abilities, especially his use of programming (not his main career I believe) to create tools to test out theories along with building.

I apologize for probably going too far, but at least from my perspective I would like to bring a bit more respectability to this endeavor. Although we joke, I think the root problem revolves around people announcing they have a working something (or purposely implying) or talking down to everyone, etc. if we all could cut out this type of behavior, I think it would at least be a start to becoming a more respectable group doing something mainstream thinks is impossible, instead of a bunch of hopeless looneys!

[triplock]

@All,

As I jumped late into this topic I thought that I'd read all the posts from the very beginning, just to see what the fuss is all about and why the escalation in name calling. For there to be name-calling, people must perceive some sort of personal attack, else you'd just shrug your shoulders and say 'whatever'.

Acting as arbitrator, I'd say that you, Jim, have come across in this thread as a little bit rude and condenscending unfortunately. Also, I'd say that you have indirectly stated and inferred that you have a working wheel and that it is at the patent stage. Your sentences are littered with literary breadcrumbs that take leave no doubt in my mind that that is what you want people to believe.

There is a slight 'the cat that's got the cream' edge to your tone also that some might see as arrogance, or indeed, it could be read as a contempt for others as they are not in on the 'joke'.

For me, there are more than enough text sign-posts within your postings to say that you do not have a running wheel, even though you want people to believe you have. But it is said in such a matter that there is a caveate within your syntax for you to say 'but you read it wrong idiot'.

Ultimately Jim, we all wiggle our selves into corners sometimes. Christ, I've been guilty of that on a few occasions, mistaking belief for fact.

Kind regards

Chris

'Humility stands on the shoulders of Greatness'

[pequaide]

The site is full of people that endlessly complain about what others do or don't do. Apparently most think insults are part of the fun. And as duly noted by Ed little science goes on here because of the bigger game of belittling one another.

I will drop this in again just as an example.


“Take a light mass rim and place a one kilogram point masses at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock. Wrap the rim with a string and place it upright on dry ice. Slide the rim on the dry ice until it reaches a velocity of one meter per second. The rim is not rotating so the input energy is 1/2*2kg*1m/sec*1m/sec = 1 joule. Tie the end of the string to a wall; and the rim will force itself into a roll. One fourth turn later the top mass has a velocity of 2 m/sec and an energy of 1/2*1*2*2 = 2 joules. The center of mass proceeds at the same velocity; and momentum is conserved. The proof is not in the showing it is in the seeing.�


How many people conducted this experiment? It is simple and cheap. And variations are even cheaper and simpler. But unless you can prove it does not work; it makes energy. But instead of people repeating experiments you get insults.

If you want a computer program to tell you that you can make energy in the lab just tell the computer to conserve momentum.

You tell the computer to conserve energy and then you give as a proof the fact that the computer tells you that you can't make energy. The computer parrots what you tell it to do.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Someone whacked the hornets nest, now there's a bunch of mad frothing critters thrashng around looking for something to kill. No respect at all.

I have seen you running with the pack a few times, and what was your reason? the members device was thought not to work.

And then there was me who would not except "without proof " that 13 billion years of PM working against CF forces could work without a energy input (edit from Gravity, a pull being work done. oops!!! cheers )

I have got to get me some of them double standards green things, and get my self in a higher pack lol!

With respect, Trevor

Edited to finish my sentence, sorry Bill,& Ed , a copy and paste error!

[ovyyus]

Idiot. With respect.

[Ed]

:D