Moved from "Over Balanced Wheel - Perpetual Motion"

[Sir Isaac Einstein]

Why would you need MY design, for a device you will never build?
It would be nice, to read some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism from some of you ----- but I guess that's
asking too much! It seems to me, that most ----- if not ALL ----- of you, rellish in putting people
down. After all, NOBODY EVER, has seen, (or asked to see), any of my designs ----- so how would you know if I'm right, or wrong?
Read the book ----- not the cover.

Sir Isaac Einstein

[jab2]

Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Einstein

Why would you need MY design, for a device you will never build?
It would be nice, to read some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism from some of you ----- but I guess that's
asking too much! It seems to me, that most ----- if not ALL ----- of you, rellish in putting people
down. After all, NOBODY EVER, has seen, (or asked to see), any of my designs ----- so how would you know if I'm right, or wrong?
Read the book ----- not the cover.

Sir Isaac Einstein

Sir, may I ask you why you have not patented your design and found a financial backer to build it? With the current energy crisis the world faces, your machine will be accepted with open arms. Since you hinted of financial pressures, I am sure you are open to some extra money.

I find it rather peculiar that you, as a newbie, marches in here and start accusing the forum members, people you do not even know on a forum level, of putting people down. You made a statement that is against the laws of nature, and you substantiate that statement with nothing other than your believe that you are right. Sir, in science one's believe is no prove at all, so as Freeztar has said, you made the claim, you prove it. What do you expect that people say to you? Surely they cannot be expected to lie to themselves and about the laws of nature just to spare your feelings?

You mentioned you have a bunch of problems. From the way you communicate, it might just be obvious why.

[Sir Isaac Einstein]

Dear Jab2,
I find it difficult to believe, that you are confusing the belief, that the 'laws of nature', are correct. Did it ever occur to you, that this so - called 'law of nature' could in fact, be incorrect?
I am of course, refering to the 'law' that says perpetual motion is impossible. I honestly don't know if
I'M correct , or not ----- but I'm betting it's incorrect! Once again, read the book and not its cover!
With regard to you saying I'm accusing people of putting me down ----- I have NOT accused anyone
at all. What I actualy said was; it 'seems' to be that way! Even yourself! No disrespect meant!
I did NOT 'come in here' to cause ANYONE any problems. I simply answered a 'thread 'on this forum.
Ever since I answered that 'thread', I've become the center (or 'seem' to be) , of a systematic 'attempt'
(is that the right word?) to be 'put down' for my beliefs. After all said and done, am I not entitled to
my opinion? You (and others), are most certainly entitled to yours ----- even if I ,disagree.

Sir Isaac Einstein

[jab2]

deleted: duplicate post

[jab2]

Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Einstein

I find it difficult to believe, that you are confusing the belief, that the 'laws of nature', are correct. Did it ever occur to you, that this so - called 'law of nature' could in fact, be incorrect?

No, it did not and neither would it. The fact that I can calculate the time of tomorrow's sunrise at my house, the fact that I know for sure that the water would run into my bath and not wet the ceiling when I open the tap, the fact that I get water when I burn Hydrogen in an Oxygen environment, all these things show me that the laws as formulated is sound, so I have no reason to disbelieve them. But then as I said, believe is of no value in science. One needs proof. For me the proof is that nature adhere to the laws as formulated. Do you perhaps have a proof to the contrary?

Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Einstein

I am of course, refering to the 'law' that says perpetual motion is impossible. I honestly don't know if
I'M correct , or not ----- but I'm betting it's incorrect!

It is actually the law of conservation of energy which state that energy in a closed system will remain constant. You can read about it on the NASA site Conservation of Energy To thus create a perpetual motion machine, no energy can be given off to the environment and there can thus be no energy to draw off to power off system needs. Even the mere conversion of friction into heat is an energy loss to the system thus BUffy and Moontanman's reference to friction.

Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Einstein

I simply answered a 'thread 'on this forum.
Ever since I answered that 'thread', I've become the center (or 'seem' to be) , of a systematic 'attempt'
(is that the right word?) to be 'put down' for my beliefs. After all said and done, am I not entitled to
my opinion? You (and others), are most certainly entitled to yours ----- even if I ,disagree.

Sir Isaac Einstein

You are most certainly entitled to your own opinion, but to steadfastly cling to a flawed opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are wrong would most definitely attract attention. People has give adequate info against your opinion, yet you have not given one single bit of info to prove your side. The way how you sidestep direct questions which would cast a shadow on your opinion are also noted. For instance my question why, if you are so sure that perpetual motion is fact and the law of conservation of energy is wrong, do you not embark on a surely needed source of clean energy remains unanswered.

Oh, I nearly forgot. Please do read on perpetual motion at Perpetual motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/people/people.htm and BBC NEWS | Technology | The perpetual myth of free energy

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Einstein

After all said and done, am I not entitled to
my opinion? You (and others), are most certainly entitled to yours ----- even if I ,disagree.

Actually, SIE, you’re not entitled to express your opinion at hypography unless you follow the site rules when doing so. Following the rules is a condition of your being allowed to post here.

Please, before posting again, carefully read these rules. If you have any questions about them, ask them any moderator or administrator by clicking on his or her member name where it appears to the left of a post and clicking “send a private message to ...” to send a PM, or starting a thread in the Q & A or User feedback forums.

We worked out a pretty good mechanical treatment of the overbalanced wheel class of proposed perpetual motion machines earlier this year, toward the last posts in the “Magical Machines” thread. ( kudos/props to ozi-rocks, who started the approach on his personal website)

If you clearly and carefully consider the mechanics of them (the sketches in that thread and webpages linked to from it are a great help in keeping things clear), their motion is very predictable. In the ideal, zero-friction/useful work case, they’re not, as most people guess, perpetually spinning wheels, but oscillating pendulums.

Though actually building these machines is a good way to convince yourself they can’t run perpetually or generate useful power, not to mention a good exercise in scientific model building, I think modeling their behavior using mathematical mechanics is important, as without it, one’s tempted to think that if one can just make a better, lower friction machine, it might work. A mathematical approach allows one to answer the question “how would this machine behave if it was perfectly frictionless?”

[Sir Isaac Einstein]

My best bet, would be to show a video on you-tube then? And it never dawned on you then that
maybe ALL of you are wrong?
Thanks for your vote of no confidence!

Sir Isaac Einstein

[Zythryn]

SIE, it is of course possible that everyone other than you is wrong.
However, the experimental evidence seems to support the majority's position here.
To strengthen your position, you could show the design, or do an inexpensive lab experiment to show your ideas are correct and the general physical properties as we currently understand them are wrong.
You HAVE been asked to share your design, so even if you can't build it, perhaps sharing it would allow a more informed critique?

[jab2]

Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Einstein

And it never dawned on you then that
maybe ALL of you are wrong?

Hell, you must be smoking some really strong stuff.

I'm out of this thread, reason being my sig lines.

[Sir Isaac Einstein]

Zythryn,
I agree with you ------ puting (one) of my ideas on display, might just change peoples minds!
I think I'll let the people decide for themselves.

Sir Isaac Einstein


P.S. Can anyone help me out here? How do I 'post' my notes/drawings etc..