Jump to content
Science Forums

Where Does The Energy Come From ?


Recommended Posts

only the wheel is animated, the rest is real an even if you chance the cubes only for one time ( 18.00 minute) you have violated thr CoE.

The rest of the video leaves a lot out of the view of the camera.  I advise looking at it with a more critical, and skeptical eye.   Ask yourself, "What is just out of view of the camera?"

 

Seeing is not believing, especially when so much is intentionally kept from view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOh8aOZ5lxU 

lol!  That is not endless circulation. Someone is using two sets of tweezers and putting in much more energy than any put out by the capillary action. 

The rest of the video leaves a lot out of the view of the camera.  I advise looking at it with a more critical, and skeptical eye.   Ask yourself, "What is just out of view of the camera?"   Seeing is

only the wheel is animated, the rest is real an even if you chance the cubes only for one time ( 18.00 minute) you have violated thr CoE.

 

If you want to be taken seriously, start by explaining how the transfer of just one cube from the raised floater to the neutral floater occurs, and then back again to the raised floater, without the use of any external energy. Without that, your video is nothing but a very lumbering and vapid and not even funny cartoon. I suggest you market it as a possible cure for insomnia. Snore

Link to post
Share on other sites

its exactly described here, I hope you can translate it http://www.hwcv.net/energiebilanz-details/ . there you can read, that the moving of the cubes by hand is performed work of course, but this work appears suddenly, caused by friction, in a warming of the system an so, you can forget this performed work according to the energy balance.

 

and i am not here to be taken serious, but to get an answer to the thread question. if anybody doesnt believe what the video shows, its ok, but I am not interessted in this doubts, nevertheless I say, everybody has the right to have his own opinion, even it isn t mine

Edited by deschoe
Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything that others have posted about these videos of yours confirms my worst fears. They evidently suffer from exactly the defects that I predicted.

 

I have given my explanation of the scientific phenomenon of capillary rise, and why it does NOT violate conservation of energy.

 

But getting into a debate about videos that do not show a real experiment, or else rely on animation, or external "help", is a waste of everybody's time and simply not science. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rest of the video leaves a lot out of the view of the camera.  I advise looking at it with a more critical, and skeptical eye.   Ask yourself, "What is just out of view of the camera?"

 

Seeing is not believing, especially when so much is intentionally kept from view.

 

A truer word was never spoken, especially when YouTube videos of unknown provenance are involved!

Link to post
Share on other sites

its exactly described here, I hope you can translate it http://www.hwcv.net/energiebilanz-details/ . there you can read, that the moving of the cubes by hand is performed work of course, but this work appears suddenly, caused by friction, in a warming of the system an so, you can forget this performed work according to the energy balance.

 

 

Actually, you can't "forget" the work performed by hand if you want to get the right answer.  That you have to put work into moving the cubes is the very reason there is no violation of the conservation of energy.  If you analyze a system, you have to consider all energy inputs. 

Edited by Farming guy
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

and i am not here to be taken serious, but to get an answer to the thread question. if anybody doesnt believe what the video shows, its ok, but I am not interessted in this doubts, nevertheless I say, everybody has the right to have his own opinion, even it isn t mine

We didn't give you mere doubts here, merely answers to why conservation of energy is not violated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

its exactly described here, I hope you can translate it http://www.hwcv.net/energiebilanz-details/ .

I see also that they are trying to raise money at the site you posted, and they put down some pseudo equations with no actual numbers.  I want to see some actual data, and then we can perform the calculations ourselves.

 

The experiment is simple enough that you could actually do it in your kitchen, just remember to collect all of the data regarding energy inputs.

 

It could be fun, and I'd do it myself, but I've got a barn to go clean out.

Edited by Farming guy
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see also that they are trying to raise money at the site you posted, and they put down some pseudo equations with no actual numbers.  I want to see some actual data, and then we can perform the calculations ourselves.

 

The experiment is simple enough that you could actually do it in your kitchen, just remember to collect all of the data regarding energy inputs.

 

It could be fun, and I'd do it myself, but I've got a barn to go clean out.

Raising money?? 

 

What imbeciles. All they need is an hour with any decent 6th Form physics teacher. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of when there was a bit of a push to sell hydrogen kits for cars.  Someone I know was very excited a few years ago about his new investment that he was partnering with a mechanic on to install these kits that used the electricity generated by the vehicle's alternator to extract hydrogen from a water tank to be injected into the engine through the air intake, I think.  He was already in the process of installing the kits on a couple of his own vehicles to measure the expected increase in fuel efficiency.  He never mentioned it again. 

 

I could have told him why it wouldn't work if he had asked me before investing the money, but what do I know, I'm just a farmer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of when there was a bit of a push to sell hydrogen kits for cars.  Someone I know was very excited a few years ago about his new investment that he was partnering with a mechanic on to install these kits that used the electricity generated by the vehicle's alternator to extract hydrogen from a water tank to be injected into the engine through the air intake, I think.  He was already in the process of installing the kits on a couple of his own vehicles to measure the expected increase in fuel efficiency.  He never mentioned it again. 

 

I could have told him why it wouldn't work if he had asked me before investing the money, but what do I know, I'm just a farmer.

 

 

The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to hypography, deschoe! :) Please feel free to start a topic in the introductions forum to tell us something about yourself.

 

Are you the maker and narrator of the linked-to, videos?

 

You appear to be claiming that if you submerged the bottom half of a hoop of material less dense than water in water, with a capillary effect cylinder surrounding one of the two circular sections where the hoop pierced the surface of the water, the hoop would rotate continuously, and do physical work.

 

In none of the linked to videos, however, do I actually see such a machine, only an animation of it.

 

I don’t believe the machine would behave as you claim. Can you build this machine, and show that it does?

 

Unless you can actually show that the machine you describe does work, it’s pointless to ask where the energy to do that work comes from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its funny to read inhere that a lot of you friendly suggest  to give me a chance to show what to do I'm able, instead the truth is, its not me but all of you  which have a chance to show that you are worthy to discuss such a innovation in a science forum. you should savvy, that I am not asking whether I am right, because I know that I am right, but I am asking, why I am right. According to the only accusation I would had expected, namely "why dont you explain your discovery better",  I would have answered, if this great explanation by the upper videos is not enough for you, so watch those videos as often until you understand them, because otherwise you better use your time to find out, what is the current price of bananas and how many cash do you have right now in your pocket ;-)

Edited by deschoe
Link to post
Share on other sites

its funny to read inhere that a lot of you friendly suggest  to give me a chance to show what to do I'm able, instead the truth is, its not me but all of you  which have a chance to show that you are worthy to discuss such a innovation in a science forum. you should savvy, that I am not asking whether I am right, because I know that I am right, but I am asking, why I am right. According to the only accusation I would had expected, namely "why dont you explain your discovery better",  I would have answered, if this great explanation by the upper videos is not enough for you, so watch those videos as often until you understand them, because otherwise you better use your time to find out, what is the current price of bananas and how many cash do you have right now in your pocket ;-)

 

 

You hit the jackpot on the crackpot index!

 

 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment

 

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

 

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

 

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions

 

 

I will give you another 50 points for the animations. :rockon:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You hit the jackpot on the crackpot index!

 

 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment

 

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

 

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

 

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions

 

 

I will give you another 50 points for the animations. :rockon:

This crackpot index is very good, but perhaps showing its age (19yrs).

 

I think today one might usefully add a new category, worth, maybe 20 or 30 pts, for relying on videos on YouTube rather than describing the idea clearly and accurately in words and diagrams.

 

If Craig's description of the new setup is right, it might be fun to analyse why it won't work, mechanistically (i.e. apart from making the obvious point that it would violate CoE of course). But to do that one would need a proper description and diagrams. From a video it is never clear exactly what one is looking at and the linear nature of the presentation makes it very tiresome to use.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...