energy producing experiments

[pequaide]

Actually; I think it all fits nicely together.

What I see in ‘Smokin Lamas’, and many other such devices in my laboratory, is a large mass in motion; and all of the motion is given to a small subset of that mass.

Since sledges work; let us reduce the phenomenon to its simplest form.

Let’s say you have a 100 kilogram flat sheet of steel moving on dry ice at .4429 m/sec. All that motion is transferred to a one kilogram (pumpkin) object. If momentum is conserved that one kilogram must be moving 44.29 m/sec. This means it would rise 100 meters and you could probably throw it 725 feet. Now I realize the wheel of Smokin Lamas is moving faster but the wheel probably does not have a mass 100 times that of the pumpkin. This is approximately the type of motion increases I see in the lab, slow moving large wheels can violently throw bags of BB.

Now you say energy can not be made; so let’s look at the same experiment and assume that energy is conserved.

Let’s say you have a 100 kilogram flat sheet of steel moving on dry ice at .4429 m/sec. All that motion is transferred to a one kilogram (pumpkin) object. If energy is conserved that one kilogram must be moving 4.429 m/sec. This means it would rise 1 whopping meter, and you could probably throw it 7.5 feet. This is absolutely not the motion I see with Smokin Lamas or in the lab. If I release the BB bag at the wrong time I can thud the ceiling with violent throws, and you are saying I should not even be ably to reach the ceiling.

I have to believe what I see, and everything I see was explained by Isaac Newton.

[FunWithGravity2]

wow!!!!

[pequaide]

Oh come on: I am having more fun than that.

You should show a fox using the machine to launch chickens out of a fenced in barnyard into the woods. And the fox has a huge grin on his face.

I have a wheel that is only gently moving that throws to the other end of the lab with no apparent arch. I am sure it has an arch but I do not see it. Yes; put a huge grin on his face.

[ovyyus]

Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Bill,

He was right, soon the world well move by levers everything thing will be powered by then, not out of balance but with there leverage with out of balance force, easy to turn balanced wheels, with geometry resets and all of them falling levers driving the wheels plus output generators, I cannot wait, a rotating lever is a out off balance wheel the falls on both sides, add more and the wheel becomes more balanced and you get more leverage out, it is a win win scenario! one day someone well believe me, untill then I will keep on finding better way to use them, free energy that will make hydrogen to drive our fuel cell cars.

Sorry Bill, to keep on about multi levers but its the future!

Regards Trevor

[FunWithGravity2]

Oh come on: I am having more fun than that.
You should show a fox using the machine to launch chickens out of a fenced in barnyard into the woods. And the fox has a huge grin on his face.

I have a wheel that is only gently moving that throws to the other end of the lab with no apparent arch. I am sure it has an arch but I do not see it. Yes; put a huge grin on his face.

ignorance is BLISS

[ovyyus]

Trevor, proving levers are conservative is easy. Demonstrating otherwise seems practically impossible. Obviously! :)

[pequaide]

Ignorant???

You defend the theory of Energy Conservation with religious fervor. You have to because the preponderance of scientific evidence does not support it.

If a rocket in deep space changes its velocity from 4000 to 8000 m/sec it will take the same amount of fuel (energy) as when it changed the velocity from 0 m/sec to 4000 m/sec. The kinetic energy change from 4000 to 8000 is four times as great as the kinetic energy change from 0 to 4000 and the fuel used is the same, yet you say a person is ignorant if he questions the Law of Conservation of Energy. What mystery energy are you going to add to the rocket’s motion to make your spurious theory come out this time: heat again? Yes: I know I disregarded the rocket's mass change: I am not ignorant.

Besides: the word ‘ignorant’ means you don’t know the rules of the game. Newton knew Leibniz’s energy theory; he just did not agree. I know the rules and I do not agree with the Law of Conservation of Energy, it simply does not have experimental evidence.

Did you know that Newton and Galileo were good with their hands; they actually built things. It is a grand way to find out the truth.

[FunWithGravity2]

Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,
Until you quantify your input energy you are an idiot,


saying that we don't agree with all the rest of the crap you just spewed is further IGNORANCE on your part. Oh right, your sure you figured that input thing already and you don't care about consistency and measuring input because we don't get it. ??????????


"do you still not understand ?"




Dave :)

[jim_mich]

I fully agree with Pequaide.

The Conservation of Energy Law is a concept that was developed to explain that the energy involved with the conversion of heat into work is equal to the energy involved with conversion of work into heat, specifically involving heat engines. Unfortunately, the concept was later expanded to include all thermodynamic situations, with the assumption that energy can never be created or destroyed.

The Conservation of Energy Law only applies to conversions between heat and work. It does not apply to conversions between motion and work. The Conservation of Momentum Law should be used for conversions between motion and work.

If the momentum of a first moving weight is added to the momentum of a second equal moving weight then the total kinetic energy of the two weights is doubled. Thus the momentum of the two weights is conserved while the kinetic energy of the two weights is spontaneously increased.

[FunWithGravity2]

That wasn't my point of contention Jim, As most here would agree with that. Nor would most disagree with some of the "underlying" momentum ideas that have been presented here. I guess i just continually feel bad that someone with the potential to make forward progress continues to be stuck in a rut.


I guess its not my problem. If pequaide cannot get past the reset potential or is not mechanically inclined enough to put anything he has learned into a practical quantifiable setup that is undeniabley gaining energy then so be it. IMHO if anyone else here thought these were worthwhile avenues then we would have seen some replication by now of pequaides ideas. Unfortunately he has not proven anything and noone else has yet to see anything worthwhile enough to even take a stab at it.

[jim_mich]

If pequaide cannot get past the reset potential or is not mechanically inclined enough to put anything he has learned into a practical quantifiable setup that is undeniabley gaining energy then so be it.

Don't put Pequaide down. At least he sees the energy gain. And Pequaide does his best to describe examples of energy gain. Finding a reset mechanism is not a simple task. It has been almost 300 years since Bessler found the reset mechanism.

[pequaide]

Thanks Jim; two voices are much louder than one.

I think I gave quantified experiments near the beginning of this thread. And I referred to then just a few pages back.

The fact that few have repeated these experiments does not mean these theories are false. It only means that your craving for the truth is less than mine. The experiments cost about $50 or less. I have a couple hundred in the big one; but I have many small ones.

And ‘Smokin Lamas’ is clearly the machine of which I have been speaking. Experimentation should pick up now that people can see the machine.

[ovyyus]

Jim, why do we need a reset mechanism? I don't need to see a reset mechanism. What we do need is a demonstration that the momentum of 1lb falling down 1 foot can transfer to and lift 4lbs up the same 1 foot.

Why didn't Nick's simple bicycle wheel momentum transfer slingshot result in an observable energy gain instead of a confirmation of energy conservation? Imagining a simple energy gain is easy enough, yet proving a simple energy gain appears impossible. That seems a little suspicious, don't you think?

[Fletcher]

Ditto ..

Nick's setup had all the important elements - why couldn't it prove a 10 times Energy gain by converting all momentum to increased height & Pe gain ?

Conservative forces are able to store potential [have potential] as JC reiterated in another thread today - storing Pe is not the same as gaining Pe or gaining KE, as in 'Work Done capacity'.

Where is the pequaide experimental proof to show that Pe wasn't only stored, or even restored, but increased beyond starting conditions ?

It smells, IMO.

The Conservation of Energy Law is a concept that was developed to explain that the energy involved with the conversion of heat into work is equal to the energy involved with conversion of work into heat, specifically involving heat engines. Unfortunately, the concept was later expanded to include all thermodynamic situations, with the assumption that energy can never be created or destroyed.

The Conservation of Energy Law only applies to conversions between heat and work. It does not apply to conversions between motion and work. The Conservation of Momentum Law should be used for conversions between motion and work.

That statement covers Bernoulli fluid dynamics [motion & work] then ? - which is predicated on CoE theorem & not Conservation of Momentum as you suggest it should be.