Atwoods Analysis
Moderator: scott
-
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: Atwoods Analysis
Rubbish, and lay off Jim Mitch, he's entitled to his views. Peq has had more attention than anybody on this forum over the past months, his theory is interesting. But a lot of people see the theory OK, but don't see the results, or the point of them.
You have a theory you can't validate physically ? Go see a mechanic. Please guys, this isn't meant to offensive.
My reading of this is that velocity increases mass, or if you prefer and you should, mass increases with velocity. So you can get as much darn velocity as you want, as it has to move an increasing amount of mass, basically any gain negates. Transferring all the energy under whatever form or name from a heavy object to a light object even at 100% efficiency gives a net gain of zilch.
I'd love to be wrong, and I'm sure that if anybody could design an experiment to help pequaide, they would. It's a comunication/understanding problem. Wubbly (I think) went to a whole load of trouble. OK, you don't like his experiment. Build another one.
Or write one single new post describing quite clearly in layman terms what's up, what you are trying to prove, what tests you have performed, what useful, tangible results you have.
If it's transferring mass from one object to another, show it. If it's actaully creating a quantifiable form of energy that can do work you have solved the word's energy problems.
If it's transferring mass from one object to another, show it. If it's actaully creating a quantifiable form of energy that can provide mechanical drive, you have saved the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfG55yhPf2U (yeah I know, lousy, I only had 10 minutes). Might take an hour and do it with a proper setup net time, and some decent sound.
You have a theory you can't validate physically ? Go see a mechanic. Please guys, this isn't meant to offensive.
My reading of this is that velocity increases mass, or if you prefer and you should, mass increases with velocity. So you can get as much darn velocity as you want, as it has to move an increasing amount of mass, basically any gain negates. Transferring all the energy under whatever form or name from a heavy object to a light object even at 100% efficiency gives a net gain of zilch.
I'd love to be wrong, and I'm sure that if anybody could design an experiment to help pequaide, they would. It's a comunication/understanding problem. Wubbly (I think) went to a whole load of trouble. OK, you don't like his experiment. Build another one.
Or write one single new post describing quite clearly in layman terms what's up, what you are trying to prove, what tests you have performed, what useful, tangible results you have.
If it's transferring mass from one object to another, show it. If it's actaully creating a quantifiable form of energy that can do work you have solved the word's energy problems.
If it's transferring mass from one object to another, show it. If it's actaully creating a quantifiable form of energy that can provide mechanical drive, you have saved the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfG55yhPf2U (yeah I know, lousy, I only had 10 minutes). Might take an hour and do it with a proper setup net time, and some decent sound.
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.
Nic, I didn't call out for jim.
And Nic I'm sure I tried to explain the experiment to you once. The problem is not the theory, the problem is not the mechanical built, the problem is not the doubt. The sole problem is the people involved in this area. They have no sense of progress or management. They act like teenagers competing with something that doesn't even exists.
When I open my mouth the usual bullies enter the room spreading their crap all over the place and shutting everyones mind. Ask yourself what the purpose of this forum is if whenever a breakthrough is made the whole thing shuts down and years go by until it's forgotten. I have worked on open source projects so I damn well know what I'm talking about, this forum knows nothing about collaboration and the greater good. The delusion of fame, fortune and crushing your best "friends" is the main drive. Everyone else can go to hell.
And the amount of ignorance is unbelievable for a "free energy" forum. Not to name names but ask the current guys on the brink of a working wheel (I'm sure that's almost everyone here) for what other exotic technologies are made and talked about on other free energy forums. The answer will be very disappointing.
A lot of people here will have a reality check soon, some might even not survive to see it.
Grand delusion leads to grand failure.
And Nic I'm sure I tried to explain the experiment to you once. The problem is not the theory, the problem is not the mechanical built, the problem is not the doubt. The sole problem is the people involved in this area. They have no sense of progress or management. They act like teenagers competing with something that doesn't even exists.
When I open my mouth the usual bullies enter the room spreading their crap all over the place and shutting everyones mind. Ask yourself what the purpose of this forum is if whenever a breakthrough is made the whole thing shuts down and years go by until it's forgotten. I have worked on open source projects so I damn well know what I'm talking about, this forum knows nothing about collaboration and the greater good. The delusion of fame, fortune and crushing your best "friends" is the main drive. Everyone else can go to hell.
And the amount of ignorance is unbelievable for a "free energy" forum. Not to name names but ask the current guys on the brink of a working wheel (I'm sure that's almost everyone here) for what other exotic technologies are made and talked about on other free energy forums. The answer will be very disappointing.
A lot of people here will have a reality check soon, some might even not survive to see it.
Grand delusion leads to grand failure.
re: Atwoods Analysis
Broli, you sound like another frantic god fearing doom and gloom merchant who only sees what's wrong or lacking? I think Jim's comment is spot on:
Murilo, you only seem to have a problem with Jim because he didn't tell you what you wanted to hear about your avalanche drive. FWIW I think Jim's analysis was accurate and it should be helpful to you. Perhaps not so helpful when a mind is blinded with belief?Jim_Mich wrote:If you want something done then just forge ahead of the pack and do it. Do it for humanity, if that is your desire. Do for the benefit of you and your family. Do it for the pleasure of just doing it. But don't force your will onto other's expecting them to do it for you.
Re: re: Atwoods Analysis
ovyyus wrote:Broli, you sound like another frantic god fearing doom and gloom merchant who only sees what's wrong or lacking? I think Jim's comment is spot on:
Murilo, do you only have a problem with Jim because he didn't tell you what you wanted to hear about your avalanche drive?Jim_Mich wrote:If you want something done then just forge ahead of the pack and do it. Do it for humanity, if that is your desire. Do for the benefit of you and your family. Do it for the pleasure of just doing it. But don't force your will onto other's expecting them to do it for you.
ovy, noone likes butt lickers.Egoism: The tendency to think of self and self-interest; The belief that moral behavior should be directed toward one's self-interest;
re: Atwoods Analysis
Broli, no one likes a religious fanatic nazi boy, except perhaps other religious fanatic nazi boys :D
re: Atwoods Analysis
Is that a question or another religious fanatic nazi boy 'fact'? lol
Re: re: Atwoods Analysis
Ask me again when you graduate from donkey university.ovyyus wrote:Is that a question?
re: Atwoods Analysis
Ovyyus, your block of words will deserve different appreciations:
Murilo, you only seem to have a problem with Jim because he didn't tell you what you wanted to hear about your avalanche drive.
At first, yes, specially because he was not able to respond to arguments. After this I saw he doing the same with others.
FWIW I think Jim's analysis was accurate and it should be helpful to you.
What means ''FWIW''? No, it wasn't accurate. In true, concerning to my ideas, the technical limits of jim are far to be useful to me. At long time I just ask, even trying to pay, for a full simulation, what means too much cash for be budget.
Perhaps not so helpful when a mind is blinded with belief?[/b]
My blind mind is doing fine, thank you.
I see that Broli can defend himself... I'll stop here. It was just a normal reaction face to an implacable rude positioning, a no good stuff to a forum that already fights against zillions of stupid people outside.
Best!
Muliro
Murilo, you only seem to have a problem with Jim because he didn't tell you what you wanted to hear about your avalanche drive.
At first, yes, specially because he was not able to respond to arguments. After this I saw he doing the same with others.
FWIW I think Jim's analysis was accurate and it should be helpful to you.
What means ''FWIW''? No, it wasn't accurate. In true, concerning to my ideas, the technical limits of jim are far to be useful to me. At long time I just ask, even trying to pay, for a full simulation, what means too much cash for be budget.
Perhaps not so helpful when a mind is blinded with belief?[/b]
My blind mind is doing fine, thank you.
I see that Broli can defend himself... I'll stop here. It was just a normal reaction face to an implacable rude positioning, a no good stuff to a forum that already fights against zillions of stupid people outside.
Best!
Muliro
re: Atwoods Analysis
Murilo, FWIW = for what it's worth.
Jim and I may disagree on many things, but on the matter of your avalanche drive I think we agree that it will not work as you hope. I doubt anyone can easily help you understand whether or not that is true.
Jim and I may disagree on many things, but on the matter of your avalanche drive I think we agree that it will not work as you hope. I doubt anyone can easily help you understand whether or not that is true.
re: Atwoods Analysis
Ovyyus, thanks for your patience.
Be advised that I do appreciate very much your ''soft highly appreciated 5 green dots'' manners.
Read my leaps: I'm not anymore talking just about jim x murilo afairs, ok? Of sure, if are not able to do anything else, you all are free to guess what you want outside technical thinking.
One situation, between others, where I can kindly understand jim's behavior is if he is a war veteran. ( very sorry and not my business, or sure! )
Best!
Murilo
Be advised that I do appreciate very much your ''soft highly appreciated 5 green dots'' manners.
Read my leaps: I'm not anymore talking just about jim x murilo afairs, ok? Of sure, if are not able to do anything else, you all are free to guess what you want outside technical thinking.
One situation, between others, where I can kindly understand jim's behavior is if he is a war veteran. ( very sorry and not my business, or sure! )
Best!
Murilo
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: re: Atwoods Analysis
Universal Mechanism Litemurilo wrote:At long time I just ask, even trying to pay, for a full simulation, what means too much cash for be budget.
Ars artis est celare artem