Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is This A Reactionless Drive?


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#1 George1

George1

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 25 August 2019 - 05:40 AM

Dear colleagues,
My name is Sven Svenson. I am a member of a team of inventors.
Please help us to solve the paradox, which is described in the links below.
Initially with the only purpose to gain popularity and generate challenge at a lower scientific level we published the paradox in (a) https://overunity.co...motion-machine/ and the related post of   July 21, 2018, 02:11:37 PM and in ( :cool: https://overunity.co...on-machine/105/ and the related post of   May 16, 2019, 09:35:12 AM. A hot discussion has been taking place however within a period of more than one year and this fact unambiguously shows that there is really something very interesting in the problem. May be it's a matter of the well-known fact that any rule/law has its exceptions. And there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact.
Please help us to solve the paradox, which is described in the above items (a) and ( :cool:
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
Sven Svenson


#2 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2773 posts

Posted 25 August 2019 - 07:46 AM

 

Dear colleagues,
My name is Sven Svenson. I am a member of a team of inventors.
Please help us to solve the paradox, which is described in the links below.
Initially with the only purpose to gain popularity and generate challenge at a lower scientific level we published the paradox in (a) https://overunity.co...motion-machine/ and the related post of   July 21, 2018, 02:11:37 PM and in ( :cool: https://overunity.co...on-machine/105/ and the related post of   May 16, 2019, 09:35:12 AM. A hot discussion has been taking place however within a period of more than one year and this fact unambiguously shows that there is really something very interesting in the problem. May be it's a matter of the well-known fact that any rule/law has its exceptions. And there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact.
Please help us to solve the paradox, which is described in the above items (a) and ( :cool:
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
Sven Svenson

 

Well, Spam Spamson, it obviously won't work, whatever it is, so it is merely a question of finding the flaw in the reasoning of the inventors.

 

Typically with perpetual motion ("over unity") cranks, what they do is construct a scenario that is beyond their ability to analyse correctly and then they claim Emmy Noether is wrong and the laws of thermodynamics have been broken.

 

If you care to post a description of the invention here, one of us might take a look, if we are bored enough, and try to identify the flaw.  

 

What we won't do, though, is go off to a crank website to read all about it there. 



#3 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1430 posts

Posted 25 August 2019 - 11:49 AM

perpetual motion devices are impossible. Thermodynamics makes it impossible as every system in 'real universe' has friction meaning in order to keep the object spinning you must put energy into the system. Even if the substance you have in contact with is air you will have friction to a degree the object will eventually stop spinning or moving. Such that in chemical reactions you are sacrificing chemical states and in nuclear reactions mass there is no "Free Energy" from nothing that can be gained in 'real universe'. The Force of the normal force will never exceed the amount of energy that is lost from falling upon a surface thus there is no possible way to actually make a perpetual motion device, sorry, the 'real Universe' would be so much better if you could but it is impossible within the laws of the 'real universe'. This all goes back to the 1st law of thermodynamics "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed in a isolated system, only transferred when not isolated", which means unless there is another universe than ours there will be no change in energy within our universe being a isolated system, but your system is not isolated thus the last part does not apply and energy is lost via friction to be transferred into temperature of any object's average kinetic energy that contacts the object including air. So, basically unless you made your device in a literal void, it is impossible to isolate it from giving away energy, unless you are transferring energy from another source your object will lose energy meaning it is IMPOSSIBLE to build a perpetual motion device, but mind you even in a void the object would still have electromagnetic radiation it would emit from temperature being transferred into photons still losing energy making it entirely impossible. You will ALWAYS lose energy from the system! This can be proven easily by the cosmic microwave background that things will Always if made of matter generate photons from temperature which is just average kinetic energy of a substance that even the matter of the early universe after being born from a singularity or whatever generated the Energy/mass of the universe, meaning in no 'real universe'  that is this universe born from this big bang is perpetual motion possible due to several reasons dealing with the physical laws of this universe, but beyond that if the big bang was a singularity before it was the big bang then that black hole would emit hawking radiation still losing energy from the system, so even before the big bang  was universe it was losing energy from the system into photons via black hole hawking radiation. Do you now understand why this is completely impossible what you are telling me?



#4 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1060 posts

Posted 25 August 2019 - 12:01 PM

Mod Note: I have moved this thread to Strange Claims and deleted all of the duplicates.

 

George1-please refrain from posting any more duplicates or you will be banned as a spammer.

 

Also, if you do not back up your claims with information posted in this thread, (not links to crackpot sites) then this thread will also be deleted.


  • exchemist likes this

#5 George1

George1

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 01 September 2019 - 06:12 AM

Hi guys,

1) First of all please excuse my ignorance and my unskillfulness which made me look like a spammer. I am very sorry for this. I will follow exactly the OceanBreeze's instructions for correct correspondence in this forum.

2) Secondly, please give us some time to consider carefully what you have written and understand correctly your point of view. I will write to you in the nearest future.

Regards, 



#6 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2773 posts

Posted 01 September 2019 - 06:42 AM

Hi guys,

1) First of all please excuse my ignorance and my unskillfulness which made me look like a spammer. I am very sorry for this. I will follow exactly the OceanBreeze's instructions for correct correspondence in this forum.

2) Secondly, please give us some time to consider carefully what you have written and understand correctly your point of view. I will write to you in the nearest future.

Regards, 

Jolly good. By the way, Sven Svenson is a slightly odd name for someone from South Asia. How did you come by it? 



#7 George1

George1

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 05 September 2019 - 10:55 AM

To exchemist and VictorMedvil.
------------------------------------------------
Hi guys,
All members of our team read very carefully your posts. Well, there is obviously some kind of misundrestanding here. We are simply talking about different things. All you have written is absolutely true and correct but it has nothing to do with our concepts. So I would like to ask you to consider carefully the three links below.
The first link contains the text, and the second link contains the related Figs.1-6. The two links form one united whole.
The third link is a very important addition to the first link and to the second link. 
Besides WITH THE ONLY PURPOSE TO GAIN POPULARITY we used the links (a)  https://overunity.co...motion-machine/ and 
the related post of  July 21, 2018, 02:11:37 PM and (B)   https://overunity.co...on-machine/105/ and the related post of  May 16, 2019, 09:35:12 AM.  
The theoretical research in the three links above has been confirmed experimentally many times. (These experiments are very simple as shown in Figs.1 - 6. You can perform these experiments by yourself as many times as you want.)
The question is how to interpret the absolute coincidence between theory and experiment (especially for the third link)?  
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
Sven Svenson, a member of a team of inventors (especially for the third link)?  
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
Sven Svenson, a member of a team of inventors


#8 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2773 posts

Posted 05 September 2019 - 12:32 PM

 

To exchemist and VictorMedvil.
------------------------------------------------
Hi guys,
All members of our team read very carefully your posts. Well, there is obviously some kind of misundrestanding here. We are simply talking about different things. All you have written is absolutely true and correct but it has nothing to do with our concepts. So I would like to ask you to consider carefully the three links below.
The first link contains the text, and the second link contains the related Figs.1-6. The two links form one united whole.
The third link is a very important addition to the first link and to the second link. 
Besides WITH THE ONLY PURPOSE TO GAIN POPULARITY we used the links (a)  https://overunity.co...motion-machine/ and 
the related post of  July 21, 2018, 02:11:37 PM and ( :cool:   https://overunity.co...on-machine/105/ and the related post of  May 16, 2019, 09:35:12 AM.  
The theoretical research in the three links above has been confirmed experimentally many times. (These experiments are very simple as shown in Figs.1 - 6. You can perform these experiments by yourself as many times as you want.)
The question is how to interpret the absolute coincidence between theory and experiment (especially for the third link)?  
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
Sven Svenson, a member of a team of inventors (especially for the third link)?  
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
Sven Svenson, a member of a team of inventors

 

Forget it.

 

I don't believe for a moment that any "team' exists, given that you have not even bothered to type up the description, so all we have is a photo, taken on your mobile phone, of a handwritten scruffy bit of paper, and similar hand-drawn diagrams.

 

And I certainly do not believe you, or anyone else, has a working model of this contraption that shows any over-unity effect, nor do I believe any "theoretical research" has been done. This looks like the handiwork of some silly teenager in his bedroom. 

 

I sometimes amuse myself with these over-unity claims, but this one is too feeble to waste time on. It won't work because thermodynamics says it won't. Have a nice day.


Edited by exchemist, 05 September 2019 - 12:32 PM.


#9 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1430 posts

Posted 05 September 2019 - 03:33 PM

 

To exchemist and VictorMedvil.
------------------------------------------------
Hi guys,
All members of our team read very carefully your posts. Well, there is obviously some kind of misundrestanding here. We are simply talking about different things. All you have written is absolutely true and correct but it has nothing to do with our concepts. So I would like to ask you to consider carefully the three links below.
The first link contains the text, and the second link contains the related Figs.1-6. The two links form one united whole.
The third link is a very important addition to the first link and to the second link. 
Besides WITH THE ONLY PURPOSE TO GAIN POPULARITY we used the links (a)  https://overunity.co...motion-machine/ and 
the related post of  July 21, 2018, 02:11:37 PM and ( :cool:   https://overunity.co...on-machine/105/ and the related post of  May 16, 2019, 09:35:12 AM.  
The theoretical research in the three links above has been confirmed experimentally many times. (These experiments are very simple as shown in Figs.1 - 6. You can perform these experiments by yourself as many times as you want.)
The question is how to interpret the absolute coincidence between theory and experiment (especially for the third link)?  
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
Sven Svenson, a member of a team of inventors (especially for the third link)?  
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
Sven Svenson, a member of a team of inventors

 

 

I have had 3 people that have claimed to have created perpetual motion devices in my time as a science person and none of them have shown me a way for composition of a completely friction-less surface until you prove it to me then I will not believe and these papers you have written are all and good but nowhere prove the point you are trying to prove, the others had videos of their devices and still it wasn't perpetual motion as I explained from the materials that they used. This has soured me to the idea of perpetual motion there should be no smoke and mirrors in science, it either works or it doesn't, there is no in between. I refuse to read your papers as they stand, type them as exchemist said, as a scientist or engineer would.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 05 September 2019 - 09:56 PM.


#10 George1

George1

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 10:37 AM

Well, firstly, if you read carefully our papers, then you will see that it is CLEARLY WRITTEN that modern technologies allow to reduce practically as much as you want the experimental error, related to friction. And secondly, efficiency bigger than one in principle has nothing to do with lack of friction. You simply fear the truth more or less, don't you?  



#11 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2773 posts

Posted 07 September 2019 - 03:26 AM

You simply fear the truth more or less, don't you?  

Haha, this is about the oldest rhetorical gambit in the crank arsenal. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen it. Yes of course, we are all in terror that your scruffy bit of handwriting and wobbly diagrams will overturn 200 years of established physics. 

 

Tell you what though: if you can be bothered to put the writing and the diagrams into a tidy, concise format that is clear to understand, and post them here on this forum, I will have a go at analysing them as a physics problem, to show you where the error(s) are in your analysis.  


Edited by exchemist, 07 September 2019 - 03:26 AM.


#12 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts

Posted 07 September 2019 - 01:11 PM

Perpetual motion is a misnomer. What George is proposing is a perpetual acceleration machine. Friction is irrelevant. The machine starts and no matter how small can generate infinite power; even surpass all the power of the universe. Now doesn't that sound likely? Free yourself from the constraints of the laws of physics and anything is possible no matter how absurd it sounds.

 

When I was in high school I showed my physics teacher my prototype and he was amazed. I recently saw a youtube of someone who had built a full scale working model of my idea. The  demo looks good but a key part is misleading , the idea doesn't actually work. 


Edited by ralfcis, 07 September 2019 - 01:17 PM.


#13 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1430 posts

Posted 07 September 2019 - 02:13 PM

Perpetual motion is a misnomer. What George is proposing is a perpetual acceleration machine. Friction is irrelevant. The machine starts and no matter how small can generate infinite power; even surpass all the power of the universe. Now doesn't that sound likely? Free yourself from the constraints of the laws of physics and anything is possible no matter how absurd it sounds.

 

When I was in high school I showed my physics teacher my prototype and he was amazed. I recently saw a youtube of someone who had built a full scale working model of my idea. The  demo looks good but a key part is misleading , the idea doesn't actually work. 

 

and see thats my point you cannot have a infinite source of force, if you could machines like these would work but in reality there is no source that is reaction-less, it must be powered by Chemical, Nuclear , and Kinetic Energies as far as we as human understand. You cannot have a infinite or finite source of force without something creating the force which is why these perpetual motion devices are absolutely impossible. The Machine will constantly lose energy without a source to replace it, if it is reaction-less. For instance, the reason why nuclear reactions work and this is impossible is by the nuclear reaction changing the state of atoms releasing mass as energy where as this is impossible because there is no source of energy being used.

 

Q-value-nuclear-reaction-min.png


Edited by VictorMedvil, 07 September 2019 - 02:22 PM.


#14 George1

George1

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 08 September 2019 - 05:39 AM

Let us repeat again.

----------------------------------------

1) In theoretical and applied mechanics the term "no friction" means that friction is so small that it can be neglected. Modern (and not so modern) technologies allow to reduce friction practically as much as you want thus reducing the experimental error due to friction as much as you want too. 

----------------------------------------

2) Our design does not need friction equal to zero. Friction, which is small enough, is perfect.

----------------------------------------

3) Our experiment almost literally copies the theoretical construction described in our papers. The experiment is simple and you can easily perform it by yourself. 

----------------------------------------

I would like to ask you again to consider carefully the three links (05 Sept 2019 - 7:55 PM). They are simple, readable and easy for understanding.

----------------------------------------

Looking forward to your answer.



#15 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2773 posts

Posted 08 September 2019 - 06:44 AM

Let us repeat again.

----------------------------------------

1) In theoretical and applied mechanics the term "no friction" means that friction is so small that it can be neglected. Modern (and not so modern) technologies allow to reduce friction practically as much as you want thus reducing the experimental error due to friction as much as you want too. 

----------------------------------------

2) Our design does not need friction equal to zero. Friction, which is small enough, is perfect.

----------------------------------------

3) Our experiment almost literally copies the theoretical construction described in our papers. The experiment is simple and you can easily perform it by yourself. 

----------------------------------------

I would like to ask you again to consider carefully the three links (05 Sept 2019 - 7:55 PM). They are simple, readable and easy for understanding.

----------------------------------------

Looking forward to your answer.

Nope. You present it here, in a clear and concise format and I'll see if I can tell what's wrong. But I'm not going to waste a whole afternoon hopping back and forth between various hand-drawn diagrams and handwritten explanations. Up to you. 



#16 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts

Posted 08 September 2019 - 07:10 AM

XC is lying to you George. This guy has no technical expertise to evaluate anything in this subject matter. He just wants to act like he can trying to impress an imaginary audience so he can delusionally boost his sad ego. He thinks he's intelligent but I know different.  He can't even evaluate the solid and extensive algebra I present in my thread. I mean, not even algebra, that's high school stuff that he has no idea about. This is just a forum troll who's very insecure about his lack of intelligence and ability to reason so he spreads his venomous bile and even racism wherever he goes. He's just setting you up to dump all over you. Unfortunately it will be easy for him to do so because perpetual acceleration is a youtube con game and has proven to fool much more intelligent people than the likes of XC. The conservation of energy can no more be violated than causality and c because these things are what the functioning of the universe is based upon.


Edited by ralfcis, 08 September 2019 - 07:48 AM.


#17 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts

Posted 08 September 2019 - 06:00 PM

Ok I took a look and it's very readable and clear. I'm no Newtonian physics expert but I see your linear equation for F=ma but where's your angular velocity equation when your set up goes through the zig zags. Are you claiming you're going through a longer distance through the zig zags in comparison to the no-zig zag version in the same time? This would be pretty easy to prototype with a mass suspended in the center between 2 springs  held by two wheels on a linear track. Compare how fast the contraption goes without vibrating the mass and how far it goes with the suspended mass vibrating. I assume, without doing the math, the angular momentum of the vibrating mass takes away from the forward momentum. Again, I don't do physics and my assumptions could be wrong so prototype it without bothering anyone further.