Geronimo Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 ...some weirdo in this thread said that the machine is complicated and that is why it wont work. isnt the internal combustion engine complicated and didnt it work talkless of the nuclear reactors. more complicated ideas seems to work more properly not just those simple scraps they call attempts to make PMMs.How many machines that do useful jobs are simple. they are complicated huh? It was me, sorry for that. I didnt know that you are thinking it real :shrug: , dont know that you build that pictures. From your first post it looks like just fun from someone. Once more sorry, i do not mean it like i said. Changed opinion from you other posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geronimo Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 The vehicle design I am patenting is a design that may use an engine. But The trick for a car is that to make it 100% efficient in logical sense is that it has to be able to move itself. So is it perpetual motion device what you are patenting? If it is not 100 % efficient so i think it is not perpetual motion, becouse perpetual machine must generate 101 % and more. Am i right? 100 % means that it is powering itself without any depends and anything more is usuable energy. I really do not have any idea what you are patenting. Is it described in forum before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killasnail42 Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 hello every one i just want you all to know i have relly bad spelling so go easy on me if you have 2 magnets suspended on two strips of metal so they can rock back and forth in a vaccume but not tuch each other and conteted to springs so when one pushes the other it springs back that pushes the other that spings back etc... and you and some kind of mecanical device that *** one magnet got pushed back is clicked a wheel and after say 500 swings and when its starting to lose momentum it whould give it a joilt so it start up again whould this work as in go on till the atoms in the metal wasted away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geronimo Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 hello every one i just want you all to know i have relly bad spelling so go easy on me if you have 2 magnets suspended on two strips of metal so they can rock back and forth in a vaccume but not tuch each other and conteted to springs so when one pushes the other it springs back that pushes the other that spings back etc... and you and some kind of mecanical device that *** one magnet got pushed back is clicked a wheel and after say 500 swings and when its starting to lose momentum it whould give it a joilt so it start up again whould this work as in go on till the atoms in the metal wasted away Sorry, i do not understand the principe, too strange english for me, im foreign too, maybe some other one can help? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killasnail42 Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 ok say you have a magnet on a pole an axle so it can only move back and forth you put 2 magnets with both north poles on there tips they whould repele each other right yes so you put springs on the other end so there forced back up and repel each other again so on and so on would it work and i am not foriging just relly bad at spelling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geronimo Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 ok say you have a magnet on a pole an axle so it can only move back and forth you put 2 magnets with both north poles on there tips they whould repele each other right yes so you put springs on the other end so there forced back up and repel each other again so on and so on would it work Aha, i understand it inow. It is not true, because what will happen? One magnet pushes the moveing one forward until the spring stop the move. Then spring pull the moveing one back, but not to initial position. Much less because of continual strange of pulling magnet. It can repeat for a few times and then both forces (push and pull) will be equal and magnet stops its move. You can simulate this situation with two usual magnets. Build a tube from paper. Put a magnet in bottom and then put other magnet in tube in oposition. The spring will simulate a gravity insted. Same situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killasnail42 Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 ok so youer saying that the pusher magnet will go back but not all the way becuse of the strain? from the other magnet.um yea iam not sure what youer trying to say but i think i get the idear it will kinda fizzel out after a cuople of times can you think of a way to get around this mabey a vaccume where theres no air restince this might help it last a liltel while longer or some sort of mecanical clock work like say it pushes a pole the turns a gear that winds up a spring that say after 5 turns resets the whole thing so it starts over.and what about if it was in spave with 0 gravety whould this affect it at all if this fizzel problem chould be over come i cant think of a reson why it should stop except for the magnets de magnetzin but dont neodynium magents last like 25 years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killasnail42 Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 ah yes plus i said to put it on meteal strips thin of curse so the are flexable wont they help reset the magnets to there oregnal place of course you whould need relly poweful magnets to push agents the sping and bend the strip there on i dont know what do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEguy Posted April 11, 2006 Report Share Posted April 11, 2006 It won't work killasnail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geronimo Posted April 11, 2006 Report Share Posted April 11, 2006 As i wrote,try the little examination i wrote before, it will clear you all. Vacuum or air, doesnt matter.Forces are strong enough that you can ignore it. The stronger spring you have, the stronger magnet you need. And bacwards. Still there will be zero state (forces are equal and moveing will stop). Try the excercise as i wrote. Like TEguy sais, it will not work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geronimo Posted April 11, 2006 Report Share Posted April 11, 2006 It seems nwaogu disappear... :xx: Its a pitty, it can be an interesting conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geronimo Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Where are you all? Nobody here, just writing to myselfe. Ipiaeeeee, ipiaooooo. :lightbulb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 Knock knock.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geronimo Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 Who is there? :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEguy Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 With what I will try to build could prove that a machine can be a lot less efficient than 100% but still run on its own without needing any fuel or any visible or detectable source of energy. I would not want to get into arguments whether it should be called perpetual because it is not 100% efficient and the dictionary says this and that. Call it whatever you want if it needs no fuel or batteries I'd buy it. If someone made a machine that uses energy purely from air and produced useful power I'd be happy with that. But what I want to have a go at is drawing energy from empty space as many scientists now predict is possible. I've been reading a lot about ZPE and I think there is a lot of uncharted territory there. Different scientist make different experiemnts for different reasons Yet when the different results are put together it all makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclogite Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 On this and other forums I have observed that the only evidence for perpetual motion is the persistence of threads on the topic. But they are supplied by external energy, so not even that qualifies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 the universe seems to be a 'perpetual machine' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.