🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 28, 6:34 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 29, 7:18 am, "dkel...@hotmail.com" <dkel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Hi
> >  A little physics will show how this doesn't work.
> >  First, it would be true that a flywheel with no force on it would
> > continue to point
> > in a constant direction.
> >  The problem is that the gear box does apply a force. This would cause
> > the flywheel
> > to precess to a point that is would no longer apply force to the
> > gearbox( IOW align
> > to the polar axis ).
> >  Another thought experiment would show that such a machine would not
> > work
> > because the earth/flywheel system would have to maintain a constant
> > moment
> > of rotational inertia. To power the gear box would require removing
> > inertia
> > from the rotation of the earth. It would be absorbed into the flywheel
> > system
> > as motion of some sort. Of course that motion would be to precess
> > until it no longer
> > had a force on it.
> >  Oh well, back to the drawing board.
> > Dwight
>
> ...
>
> "Very interesting Little Boy, but it never will work" - is a phrase
> which scientists since the medieval times keep repeating about every
> new idea. It was stated about the "jet engine", about "flying
> machines", "steel boats", etc. - quotes can be multiplied
> infinitively.

Hi
 Such responses are made without actual physical law. Conservation of
momentum
has never been broken by any experiment. Why do you think this
flywheel trick will break it,
since it is only Newtonian mechanics involved.

---snip--
>
> In Frombork (Poland) there is a tower in which the medieval
> astronomer, Mikolaj Kopernik, used to work. In this tower a perpetual
> pendulum does work. Everyone who visits it can see this pendulum
> working. The pendulum is swining, bot also rotating. Although there is
> an energy supply to make it swing, NOT energy is supplied to make it
> rotate. But it rotates perpetually, as the wheel described here, means
> by 15 degrees each hour and by 1 revolution per each day. So this
> pendulum is actually a version of the flywheel described here. And it
> really does works. Thus it also proves that the flywheel described
> here is going to work. Only that someone needs to undertake the effort
> to actually build it. I have no condition to build it, but I hope that
> someone else will. When finally it is build, it will cause a
> revolution in human thinking. It will prove wrong all scientists who
> claimed that the perpetual motion cannot be build, including all these
> "mud throwers" who spit at the idea of the wheel described here.

 Ah, this is not evidence that you can extract any energy. In fact,
the reason
the pendulum rotates is because it is not taking energy from the
earth's
rotation. It is only Conservation of momentum that makes it appear to
be taking
energy from the earth. In fact it is not. It is proof that the earth
is rotating, though.
 They used to have such a pendulum in the Hall of Science at the
Golden
Gate Park in San Francisco. The rotation rate you describe was first
calculated
by Foucault. In fact, his relation to this physical effect got him the
honor of
having it named as the Foucault Pendulum. It along with the math
proves
that the earth is rotating and not the heavens. In swinging, the
pendulum
is trying to not take energy from the earths rotation. In fact it is
doing
just the opposite. It is taking the minimal path of taking energy from
the
earth.
 I regret to say that the new Hall of Science no longer has this
demonstration.
It seems that they claim that they spent too much time trying to
explain
why it does that to the public. I suspect it is more that the
the docents didn't understand it well enough to explain it to the
public.
One interesting thing is that one can calculate the latitude of the
pendulum
by the rotational rate of the free swinging Foucault Pendulum.
 Please, take some time to understand the physics that causes the
rotation
and also the laws of the physical world that will prove to you that
you can not
extract continuous energy from such an effect.



>
> I thinik that it is NO point to write that (and why) the flywheel is
> NOT going to work, because almost all scientists on our planet keep
> yelling this for centuries. Whet we should discuss here, is why YES,
> it it going to work, and how to build one in a simplest and most
> effective manner.

 Yes, please explain why it will violate the laws of momentum. It has
to stay within these rules or it is proof that these rules no longer
apply
to the physical world. Where is the magic little man that will make
it work. Understanding of why the Foucault Pendulum does what it
does, does not violate the laws of momentum. It in fact is one of the
best proof that the laws hold true.
 As for your flywheel, when a force is applied to a flywheel, the
flywheel
doesn't move nicely in the direction of the force. It moves
perpendicular.
No enegy is net gained or lost from such a system since the energy
has to have the two verctor in the same direction, not perpendicular.
 In order to have energy extracted, you'd have to change the direction
of the force over time such that a component of the force would align
with the motion of the flywheel. Such a change over time would
eventually
reorient the flywheel system such that it would align its axis with
the
polar axis. No more energy would be extracted.
 It is kind of like rolling down hill compared with rolling up hill.
If you
roll down hill on the potential energy curve, you can extract energy
to do useful work. Once you reach the bottom of the hill, no more
energy
is extracted. Rolling back uphill would require putting energy into
the system.
 Anyway, play with the vectors of force and movement. It might even
help
you to make a flywheel from a bicycle wheel and get swivel chair
( we used to do this in physics class. I loved it ).
 You can run experiments yourself to prove to yourself that you can't
extract continuous energy form the system. You can only roll down
hill until you reach the minimum energy.
 Prove it to yourself, don't waste time reading some fools web page.
It sounds like you are a thinking person, try a little physical proof
and run the experiments.
Dwight

>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
>
> P.S. To these who are tirred of spitters who throw mud at good ideas,
> I recommend the old threadhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b...

dkelvey@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 28, 6:34 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 29, 7:18 am, "dkel...@hotmail.com" <dkel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>>  A little physics will show how this doesn't work.
>>>  The problem is that the gear box does apply a force. This would cause
>>> the flywheel
>>> to precess to a point that is would no longer apply force to the
>>> gearbox( IOW align
>>> to the polar axis ).
...
>  Such responses are made without actual physical law. Conservation of
> momentum
> has never been broken by any experiment. Why do you think this
> flywheel trick will break it,

It's not that it wouldn't work in a way. It's that it wouldn't work
very well, very long or provide any power to speak of.

Think of the gearing required to go from 1 revolution per day to
whatever is required for your electrical generation. A typical
generator works at thousands of revolutions per minute. Even if
your generator works as slow as 100 rpm, you're looking at a
gear ratio of 144,000/1. Friction in the gears would probably
consume all your power.

Think of the scale of such a device. You would need something the
size of a mountain, spinning, to generate anything significant.

Taking this to the extreme, you're slowing down the rotation of
the Earth to power the device. What if everyone did this? If you
thought global warming was bad, think of global slowing!

Anthony

On 28 Feb, 03:38, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
> generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
> one. So it took a UFOnaut to tell us how to build a simplest
> mechanical perpetual motion generator. This alien-technology generator
> is described (in the Polish language) at the threadhttp://groups.google.com/group/pl.sci.fizyka/browse_thread/thread/6f0...
> .
>
> The principle of this generator is based on the fact that the
> "Coriolis effect" keeps a flywheel motionless in relation to the solar
> system, if the axis of rotation of this flywheel is parallel to the
> axis of the Earth's rotation. Thus such a flywheel rotates in
> relationship to the surface of the Earth once per day. If it is
> connected with an electricity generator via a gearbox, it also is able
> to generate electrical energy, as its torgue is equal to the inertia
> moment of the flywheel minus the friction on the flywheel's bearings.
>
> This mechanical perpetual motion generator is described in item #F4.1
> of the newest update of the web page "wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm" dated 27
> February 2007, or later. (Old updates of this web page do NOT have the
> description of this particular perpetual motion generator.) The web
> page "wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm" should be available on following web
> sites (unless these sites are sabotaged in the meantime):
>
> http://bible.webng.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://energy.atspace.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://evidence.ueuo.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://evil.thefreehost.biz/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://fruit.sitesled.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://fruit.xphost.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://god.ez-sites.ws/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://karma.freewebpages.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://memorial.awardspace.info/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://newzealand.myfreewebs.net/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://nirvana.scienceontheweb.net/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://pigs.freehyperspace.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://parasitism.about.tc/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://parasitism.xphost.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://rubik.hits.io/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://tornado.99k.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://users3.nofeehost.com/devils/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://wszewilki.greatnow.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak

Yo! dude Jan Pajak, why don't you give me all your money for nothing.
That's what I perpetual motion, all your money coming in my direction
and me not giving anything back.

So why are you trying to persuade me to accept that you can gain
limitless energy for nothing?.

Do me a favour, give me all your money, and I will believe anything
you say.

But unfortunately the laws in this universe will not take your word
for it.

Ho ho ho, merry christmas. see I am Santa Claus, honest, please
believe me.

On Feb 29, 12:05 pm, Anthony Matonak
<anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
> dkel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 6:34 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Feb 29, 7:18 am, "dkel...@hotmail.com" <dkel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>  A little physics will show how this doesn't work.
> >>>  The problem is that the gear box does apply a force. This would cause
> >>> the flywheel
> >>> to precess to a point that is would no longer apply force to the
> >>> gearbox( IOW align
> >>> to the polar axis ).
> ...
> >  Such responses are made without actual physical law. Conservation of
> > momentum
> > has never been broken by any experiment. Why do you think this
> > flywheel trick will break it,
>
> It's not that it wouldn't work in a way. It's that it wouldn't work
> very well, very long or provide any power to speak of.
>
> Think of the gearing required to go from 1 revolution per day to
> whatever is required for your electrical generation. A typical
> generator works at thousands of revolutions per minute. Even if
> your generator works as slow as 100 rpm, you're looking at a
> gear ratio of 144,000/1. Friction in the gears would probably
> consume all your power.
>
> Think of the scale of such a device. You would need something the
> size of a mountain, spinning, to generate anything significant.
>
> Taking this to the extreme, you're slowing down the rotation of
> the Earth to power the device. What if everyone did this? If you
> thought global warming was bad, think of global slowing!
>
> Anthony


Hi Anthony
 It isn't a matter of even needing a large gear ratio. The force and
motion of a flywheel are at 90 degees. You push this way and it
moves that way. The only way to get it to work
is the allow the flywheel to change angle ( remember vectors at 90
degrees
when multiplied together create a 0 length vector = 0 power ). As the
flywheel
changes angles, it will precess towards the location that its axis is
lined
up with north and south. End of game.
 As for slowing the earth, when he spins the gyroscope up, it will
change
the earths rotation slightly but monentum will still be conserved.
Regardless
when the flywheel stops, it will be restored. If the flywheel is moved
at 90 degrees,
it will add or subtract to balance the original change. This is the
law, we can't
change it.
 The only way to permanently change the earth rotation would be to
spin
a flywheel up and then send it off into outer space. The total
momentum
of the flywheel and earth still doesn't change, it is just that we
will never see
the flywheel again. Anything we do on the earth that stays on the
earth
doesn't change the total momentum.
 The moon is slowly slowing down the earth but the total momentum of
the
earth moon system doesn't change. In the case of the moon/earth, the
moon is moving to a higher orbit.
Dwight

On Mar 1, 9:05 am, Anthony Matonak
<anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
...
> Think of the gearing required to go from 1 revolution per day to
> whatever is required for your electrical generation. A typical
> generator works at thousands of revolutions per minute. Even if
> your generator works as slow as 100 rpm, you're looking at a
> gear ratio of 144,000/1. Friction in the gears would probably
> consume all your power.
>
> Think of the scale of such a device. You would need something the
> size of a mountain, spinning, to generate anything significant.
>
> Taking this to the extreme, you're slowing down the rotation of
> the Earth to power the device. What if everyone did this? If you
> thought global warming was bad, think of global slowing!
>
> Anthony


YES, I am aware that this particular principle is NOT going to provide
much energy. I am also aware that the friction on the gearbox will
consume a significant proportion of the propelling momentum that the
flywheel is going to produce. This is why I mailny indicate this
device as a visual proof that science is wrong about the perpetual
motion devices, not as a so-called "free energy device". However, once
we have a visual proof which everyone can see, people will have a
courage to look for other principles which will not only work
perpetually, but will also generate an abundance of free energy. These
other principles involve telekinesis (which is a reversal of
friction), as a technically induced telekinesis allows to form a
feedback loop in such devices, means it allows that a part of the
output energy that their perpetual motion generates is feed back to
them as an input energy that propells their movements. Some of such
devices based on the telekinetic effect are described on totaliztic
web pages "free_energy.htm", "boiler.htm", and "fe_cell.htm" (to see
any of these web pages, in addresses provided before one needs to
replace the name "wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm" with the name of the web
page, e.g. "boiler.htm", which he or she wishes to see).

When slowing down of the Earths motion is concerned, if the Earth
could be slowed down then already long ago would slow it the friction
caused by tidal waves induced by the moon, by winds, ocean currents,
etc. The fact that the earth is NOT slowing down proves, that our
plated is actually propelled by something in its rotation. This
invisible propulsion causes that whatever we humans would do, our
planet will be rotating at the same speed (unles this propelling
effect is changes). What actually propells the Earth, it is explained
by the "theory of everything" called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity
(to have a look at summary of this theory one needs to see the
totaliztic web page "dipolar_gravity.htm").

In spite that thyere is a lot of enemies of the wheel discussed here,
I do hope that someone, or some museum, finances or makes it
constructed, so that it proves to people who thing that thay know
everything, that is "much more on heaven and earth than philosophers
dreamed about". One of such matters is this flywheel, which if slanted
at a correct angle towards the Earth surface, will revolve
infinitively long. Probably the only reason why this wheel was NOT
constructed by accident as yet, is that it requires slanting in
relationship to the Earth's surface, so that the axis of rotation of
it is parallel to the Earth's axis of rotation. This slanting is quite
significant, because for example for the area of Poland it is equal to
49 to 55 degrees - depending on the exact location of the area in
which this flywheel is to be assembled.

How exatly one should approach the construction of this flywheel (e.g.
from an old locomotive wheel), I am just describing it at the newest
update of the totaliztic web page "free_energy.htm". Perhaps in my
next comments I will explain the most vital points of thie
construction.

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

janpajak@gmail.com wrote:

> On Mar 1, 9:05 am, Anthony Matonak
> <anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
> ...
> > Think of the gearing required to go from 1 revolution per day to
> > whatever is required for your electrical generation. A typical
> > generator works at thousands of revolutions per minute. Even if
> > your generator works as slow as 100 rpm, you're looking at a
> > gear ratio of 144,000/1. Friction in the gears would probably
> > consume all your power.
> >
> > Think of the scale of such a device. You would need something the
> > size of a mountain, spinning, to generate anything significant.
> >
> > Taking this to the extreme, you're slowing down the rotation of
> > the Earth to power the device. What if everyone did this? If you
> > thought global warming was bad, think of global slowing!
> >
> > Anthony
> 
> 
> YES, I am aware that this particular principle is NOT going to provide
> much energy. I am also aware that the friction on the gearbox will
> consume a significant proportion of the propelling momentum that the
> flywheel is going to produce. This is why I mailny indicate this
> device as a visual proof that science is wrong about the perpetual
> motion devices, not as a so-called "free energy device". However, once
> we have a visual proof which everyone can see, people will have a
> courage to look for other principles which will not only work
> perpetually, but will also generate an abundance of free energy. These
> other principles involve telekinesis (which is a reversal of
> friction), as a technically induced telekinesis allows to form a
> feedback loop in such devices, means it allows that a part of the
> output energy that their perpetual motion generates is feed back to
> them as an input energy that propells their movements. Some of such
> devices based on the telekinetic effect are described on totaliztic
> web pages "free energy.htm", "boiler.htm", and "fe cell.htm" (to see
> any of these web pages, in addresses provided before one needs to
> replace the name "wszewilki jutra uk.htm" with the name of the web
> page, e.g. "boiler.htm", which he or she wishes to see).
> 
> When slowing down of the Earths motion is concerned, if the Earth
> could be slowed down then already long ago would slow it the friction
> caused by tidal waves induced by the moon, by winds, ocean currents,
> etc. The fact that the earth is NOT slowing down proves, that our
> plated is actually propelled by something in its rotation. This
> invisible propulsion causes that whatever we humans would do, our
> planet will be rotating at the same speed (unles this propelling
> effect is changes). What actually propells the Earth, it is explained
> by the "theory of everything" called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity
> (to have a look at summary of this theory one needs to see the
> totaliztic web page "dipolar gravity.htm").
> 
> In spite that thyere is a lot of enemies of the wheel discussed here,
> I do hope that someone, or some museum, finances or makes it
> constructed, so that it proves to people who thing that thay know
> everything, that is "much more on heaven and earth than philosophers
> dreamed about". One of such matters is this flywheel, which if slanted
> at a correct angle towards the Earth surface, will revolve
> infinitively long. Probably the only reason why this wheel was NOT
> constructed by accident as yet, is that it requires slanting in
> relationship to the Earth's surface, so that the axis of rotation of
> it is parallel to the Earth's axis of rotation. This slanting is quite
> significant, because for example for the area of Poland it is equal to
> 49 to 55 degrees - depending on the exact location of the area in
> which this flywheel is to be assembled.
> 
> How exatly one should approach the construction of this flywheel (e.g.
> from an old locomotive wheel), I am just describing it at the newest
> update of the totaliztic web page "free energy.htm". Perhaps in my
> next comments I will explain the most vital points of thie
> construction.
> 
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak

This was discussed on sci.physics a few years ago, if my memory serves
me right.

Also, in 1994 Rodger C. Finvold and Paul E. Humphrey managed to get a
patent on this obvious technology:

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5313850-claims.html

S.

Eugene Griessel wrote:

> janpajak@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> >Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
> >generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
> >one. So it took a UFOnaut to tell us how to build a simplest
> >mechanical perpetual motion generator. This alien-technology generator
> >is described (in the Polish language) at the thread
> >http://groups.google.com/group/pl.sci.fizyka/browse_thread/thread/6f0835cb1d0ac861/5e0d7235dc43c262?lnk=raot#5e0d7235dc43c262
> >.
> >
> >The principle of this generator is based on the fact that the
> >"Coriolis effect" keeps a flywheel motionless in relation to the solar
> >system, if the axis of rotation of this flywheel is parallel to the
> >axis of the Earth's rotation. Thus such a flywheel rotates in
> >relationship to the surface of the Earth once per day. If it is
> >connected with an electricity generator via a gearbox, it also is able
> >to generate electrical energy, as its torgue is equal to the inertia
> >moment of the flywheel minus the friction on the flywheel's bearings.
> >
> >This mechanical perpetual motion generator is described in item #F4.1
> >of the newest update of the web page "wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm" dated 27
> >February 2007, or later. (Old updates of this web page do NOT have the
> >description of this particular perpetual motion generator.) The web
> >page "wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm" should be available on following web
> >sites (unless these sites are sabotaged in the meantime):
> >
> >http://bible.webng.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
> >http://energy.atspace.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
> >http://evidence.ueuo.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
> >http://evil.thefreehost.biz/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
> >http://fruit.sitesled.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
> >http://fruit.xphost.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
> >http://god.ez-sites.ws/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
> >http://karma.freewebpages.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
> >http://memorial.awardspace.info/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
> >http://newzealand.myfreewebs.net/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
> >http://nirvana.scienceontheweb.net/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
> >http://pigs.freehyperspace.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
> >http://parasitism.about.tc/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
> >http://parasitism.xphost.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
> >http://rubik.hits.io/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
> >http://tornado.99k.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
> >http://users3.nofeehost.com/devils/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
> >http://wszewilki.greatnow.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
> >
> >With the totaliztic salute,
> >Jan Pajak
> 
> Instead of bleating about this on usenet why not build one, sell the
> power to a utility and retire to the Riveria on the income generated
> (no pun).   You could live on Moet et Chandon and pate d'fois gras
> while laying endless nubile young wenches.  But there's the rub.  You
> can't can you?  The practical proof of the theoretical pudding is in
> the eating.
> 
> Eugene L Griessel

He can't build one, because it is patented:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5313850-claims.html

S.

On Feb 28, 3:54 pm, Andrew Venor <alve...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I've printed this quote before and it still applys now.
>
> "In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
> `Homer J. Simpson

     But the answer to that bit of idiot physics, is always:

    "But in the attic, they obey the laws of lasers,
     and in the house next door, they obey the laws of robots,
     and even better, the tax man obeys the laws of A.I.





>
> ALV

On Feb 27, 8:38 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
> generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
> one.

What we're scared of is wasting our time, not of the Science Police
breaking down our doors and dragging us to re-education camps.

How do you build a new machine of any kind? A steam engine or an
internal combustion engine, for example? You apply the laws of physics
that we know to figure out what will happen if you do this or do that.

And the laws of physics that we know lead us to the conclusion that
nothing we know how to do gets energy out of nowhere - or even
extracts energy from a source of heat with better than Carnot cycle
efficiency. Nothing.

So, if it seems like some gadget will extract energy from Coriolis
forces without taking it from somewhere, then one has made a mistake
in one's sums. (However, a device that takes energy from the Coriolis
forces caused by the Earth's rotation, at the cost of slowing the
Earth down to a totally negligible and undetectable extent is
perfectly possible. If this is what your UFO friends have shown you,
though, good luck in producing practical quantities of energy from an
installation of reasonable size with it.)

John Savard

On Feb 28, 7:34 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:

> I thinik that it is NO point to write that (and why) the flywheel is
> NOT going to work, because almost all scientists on our planet keep
> yelling this for centuries. Whet we should discuss here, is why YES,
> it it going to work, and how to build one in a simplest and most
> effective manner.

Since the type of machine you propose draws its energy from the
rotation of the Earth, it doesn't really break the laws that
scientists say makes perpetual motion impossible.

But the Earth is very big, so its rotation only departs from motion in
a straight line when considered over a very large area. You could
build a small machine that would extract energy from the rotation of a
merry-go-round. To do so from that of the Earth, the machine would
have to be gigantic to make a tiny trickle of energy.A machine the
size of a Ferris wheel to make the power of a single dry cell battery?
Probably overoptimistic by orders of magnitude!

There is no point claiming it will work, unless it really will work
and be useful. There is every point to warn people against wasting
time and effort.

John Savard

On Feb 27, 7:38 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
> generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
> one. So it took a UFOnaut to tell us how to build a simplest
> mechanical perpetual motion generator. This alien-technology generator
> is described (in the Polish language) at the threadhttp://groups.google.com/group/pl.sci.fizyka/browse_thread/thread/6f0...
> .
>
> The principle of this generator is based on the fact that the
> "Coriolis effect" keeps a flywheel motionless in relation to the solar
> system, if the axis of rotation of this flywheel is parallel to the
> axis of the Earth's rotation. Thus such a flywheel rotates in
> relationship to the surface of the Earth once per day. If it is
> connected with an electricity generator via a gearbox, it also is able
> to generate electrical energy, as its torgue is equal to the inertia
> moment of the flywheel minus the friction on the flywheel's bearings.
>
> This mechanical perpetual motion generator is described in item #F4.1
> of the newest update of the web page "wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm" dated 27
> February 2007, or later. (Old updates of this web page do NOT have the
> description of this particular perpetual motion generator.) The web
> page "wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm" should be available on following web
> sites (unless these sites are sabotaged in the meantime):
>
> http://bible.webng.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://energy.atspace.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://evidence.ueuo.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://evil.thefreehost.biz/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://fruit.sitesled.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://fruit.xphost.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://god.ez-sites.ws/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://karma.freewebpages.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://memorial.awardspace.info/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://newzealand.myfreewebs.net/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://nirvana.scienceontheweb.net/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://pigs.freehyperspace.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://parasitism.about.tc/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://parasitism.xphost.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://rubik.hits.io/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://tornado.99k.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://users3.nofeehost.com/devils/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htmhttp://wszewilki.greatnow.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak

i don't know if this approach will work or not, but you certainly got
it right that inventors don't invent things that they believe to be
impossible.

And The world is full of inventions that someone, somewhere thought
was impossible at one time or another.

i believe that P-Motion is possible.
Things like gravity & magnetism certainly seem to suggest that you can
have an infinite supply of force... it can't be all that difficult to
squeeze magnets & gravity in just the right way to make one... But no
one that believes that it's impossible is going to figure it out, Only
a crazy person will.

Another invention that seems to be 'almost' possible or untamed, is
the internal inertia generator.
It seems like someone invents one of these every 5 years, or so, and
then it's suppressed.
i very much suspect that P-Motion Generators are invented more often
than that...

The trick is; If you do invent one, the moment that you get all greedy
and want to make some money off it, that gives the forces that want to
suppress it, the opportunity to come over to your house, and instead
of buying it, kill you  and burn your plans.

If you ever do invent a P-Motion Machine or Internal Inertia
Generator, just post it everywhere that you can think of on the
internet, and mail copies of the plans to every newspaper that you can
afford to, and maybe you'll be famous and make some money off it
afterwards.

But if you try to keep it a secret, you will, all too successfully.

On Mar 1, 10:12 pm, Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhund...@elves.invalid>
wrote:

> > Instead of bleating about this on usenet why not build one, sell the
> > power to a utility and retire to the Riveria on the income generated
> > (no pun).   You could live on Moet et Chandon and pate d'fois gras
> > while laying endless nubile young wenches.  But there's the rub.  You
> > can't can you?  The practical proof of the theoretical pudding is in
> > the eating.
...
> He can't build one, because it is patented:http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5313850-claims.html
...

I would NOT scare potential builders of this perpetual motion flywheel
just by telling them that it was patented. This is because every
patent has its life span, and also because every patent can be walk
around by utilising some specific technical details for which it is
not restricted. Therefore, the existence of this patent only should
encourage various hobbyists to build this flywheel, as it proves that
it actually DOES work as a perpetual motion device. The patent also
proves that all this spitting done by some individuals on the idea
presented here is actually out of place and unjustified. The flywheeel
will really work - no matter what some well masked individuals are
telling us about it.

I personally cannot build this flywheel for the simple reason that I
do NOT have conditions for building it. After all, in order to build
something mechanical, one needs to have space, tools, materials,
money, time, practical skills, and many other encouraging conditions.
I do not have any of these. But I have a will and proper conditions to
encourage others to build it in modern days simply to prove visually
that are untrue all these loud claims of scientists who stated that a
perpetual motion device cannot be build. In turn when once we prove
these claims to be untrue, then many people will have the courage to
seek other principles of operation that will be more efficient from
the energy generation point of view. After all, if perpetual motion
devices can be build at all, then building them can take place on many
different principles. On my web page "free_energy.htm" I am providing
such another principle, based on the phenomenon of telekinesis, which
is this "better" principle for implementing perpetual motion. This is
because telekinesis allows to form feedback loops of energy, means
devices which operate on principles of telekinesis allow their output
energy to be supplied to them as their input energy. This in turn
multiplies their energy yield.

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

On Feb 27, 11:25 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I'm more interested in perpetual revenue machines.
>
> Tom Davidson
> Richmond, VA

Its called chinamen

janpajak@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 1, 10:12 pm, Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhund...@elves.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>>> Instead of bleating about this on usenet why not build one, sell the
>>> power to a utility and retire to the Riveria on the income generated
>>> (no pun).   You could live on Moet et Chandon and pate d'fois gras
>>> while laying endless nubile young wenches.  But there's the rub.  You
>>> can't can you?  The practical proof of the theoretical pudding is in
>>> the eating.
> ...
>> He can't build one, because it is patented:http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5313850-claims.html
> ...
> 
> I would NOT scare potential builders of this perpetual motion flywheel
> just by telling them that it was patented. This is because every
> patent has its life span, and also because every patent can be walk
> around by utilising some specific technical details for which it is
> not restricted. Therefore, the existence of this patent only should
> encourage various hobbyists to build this flywheel, as it proves that
> it actually DOES work as a perpetual motion device. The patent also
> proves that all this spitting done by some individuals on the idea
> presented here is actually out of place and unjustified. The flywheeel
> will really work - no matter what some well masked individuals are
> telling us about it.
> 
> I personally cannot build this flywheel for the simple reason that I
> do NOT have conditions for building it. After all, in order to build
> something mechanical, one needs to have space, tools, materials,
> money, time, practical skills, and many other encouraging conditions.
> I do not have any of these. But I have a will and proper conditions to
> encourage others to build it in modern days simply to prove visually
> that are untrue all these loud claims of scientists who stated that a
> perpetual motion device cannot be build. In turn when once we prove
> these claims to be untrue, then many people will have the courage to
> seek other principles of operation that will be more efficient from
> the energy generation point of view. After all, if perpetual motion
> devices can be build at all, then building them can take place on many
> different principles. On my web page "free_energy.htm" I am providing
> such another principle, based on the phenomenon of telekinesis, which
> is this "better" principle for implementing perpetual motion. This is
> because telekinesis allows to form feedback loops of energy, means
> devices which operate on principles of telekinesis allow their output
> energy to be supplied to them as their input energy. This in turn
> multiplies their energy yield.
> 
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
> 

C'mon Tom, let me whitewash the fence......pleeze

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

<janpajak@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:51d80f05-61c4-425c-8b5b-25d885b38eb2@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 1, 9:05 am, Anthony Matonak
<anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
...
<snip>

When slowing down of the Earths motion is concerned, if the Earth
could be slowed down then already long ago would slow it the friction
caused by tidal waves induced by the moon, by winds, ocean currents,
etc. The fact that the earth is NOT slowing down proves, that our
plated is actually propelled by something in its rotation. This
invisible propulsion causes that whatever we humans would do, our
planet will be rotating at the same speed (unles this propelling
effect is changes). What actually propells the Earth, it is explained
by the "theory of everything" called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity
(to have a look at summary of this theory one needs to see the
totaliztic web page "dipolar_gravity.htm").

Well then your 'dipolar-gravity' is failing because the earth *is* slowing 
down.  And measurements confirm that the moon is moving farther away as a 
result of tidal forces slowing the earth and acceleratingn the moon.

Since the slowing of earth's rotation is a well established fact, guess the 
rest of your nonsense is just that.  Nonsense.

Now go away silly boy and let the grown ups talk now.

daestrom

On Mar 2, 4:55 pm, "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com>
wrote:
> <janpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:51d80f05-61c4-425c-8b5b-25d885b38eb2@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 1, 9:05 am, Anthony Matonak<anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> <snip>
>
> When slowing down of the Earths motion is concerned, if the Earth
> could be slowed down then already long ago would slow it the friction
> caused by tidal waves induced by the moon, by winds, ocean currents,
> etc. The fact that the earth is NOT slowing down proves, that our
> plated is actually propelled by something in its rotation.

WRONG
Fossil rugose corals preserve daily and yearly growth patterns and
show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, in
rough agreement with the 22.7 hours predicted from a constant rate of
slowing (Scrutton 1964; Wells 1963).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html

NASA
http://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/tides/intro.html

Google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=earth+slowing+rotation&btnG=Google+Search
about 1,610,000 hits

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

"tadchem" <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:2943fc8a-bf07-4495-b793-46906568bb0f@e31g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 2, 4:55 pm, "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> <janpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:51d80f05-61c4-425c-8b5b-25d885b38eb2@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 1, 9:05 am, Anthony Matonak<anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> <snip>
>>
>> When slowing down of the Earths motion is concerned, if the Earth
>> could be slowed down then already long ago would slow it the friction
>> caused by tidal waves induced by the moon, by winds, ocean currents,
>> etc. The fact that the earth is NOT slowing down proves, that our
>> plated is actually propelled by something in its rotation.
>
> WRONG

Gee I wish you'd pay attention to who wrote what and reply to the right 
person.  I didn't say the above drival, yet your silly, knee-jerk response 
makes it look like it was me that wrote this drival.

daestrom

On Mar 3, 11:12 am, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
...
> Fossil rugose corals preserve daily and yearly growth patterns and
> show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, in
> rough agreement with the 22.7 hours predicted from a constant rate of
> slowing (Scrutton 1964; Wells 1963).http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html
...

Well, for this slow down of the Earth's rotations can be a lot of
explanations, not just the natural slow down of the rotational
velocity of the Earth due to e.g. friction. For example, perhaps in
these old times the Earth had more than one Moon - as mythology of
some nations states this. Perhaps these creatures which planted the
life on the Earth changed the rotational velocity of our planet, so
that to make it more similar to their own planet. Perhaps in the
meantime our planet was hit by a large heavenly body which slowed it
down. There are NO limits to such possibilities! Thus, just claiming
that there is evidence for the Earth's motion slowing down, without
having any evidence about what caused this slowing down, is just an
empty talk. And for sure it does NOT contradict the findings of the
"theory of everything" called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (see it
described at the totaliztic web pages "dipolar_gravity.htm"), that our
planet is actually propelled in its rotary motion by forces which
present scientists still refuse to acknowledge. These are such forces
resulting from the Concept of Dipolar Gravity, that keep our planet
rotating steadily in spite of the friction from tidal action of the
Moon, in spite of the action of the Coriolis effect, in spite of the
frinction of solar winds, in spite of the gear effect of the Earth's
magnetic field interacting with fields of other planets, etc., etc.

Let us NOT be silly. If a "miaw-miaw" noise comes from a closed bag,
it still does NOT make sure that there is a cat in that bag.

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

On Mar 1, 8:29 am, "dkel...@hotmail.com" <dkel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>  Ah, this is not evidence that you can extract any energy.
...

You do not seem to look logically at this matter. There is a lot of
evidence that you actually can extract the energy from such
perpetually rotating flywheel that is propelled by the Coriolis
effect. Especially when you create an improved version of such a
flywheel, which (the version) will be composed of a cascade of several
flywheels liked together by a planetary gear. Such a cascade allows us
to create a feedback for the flywheels' rotational motion, means allow
every next flywheel to take at the entry the rotational velocity of
the previous flywheel and additionally multiply this velocity. For
more details see the desciptions on the web page
"free_energy.htm" (but only on the update from 3rd March 2008, or from
later date), which you should be able to find on some amongst
following addresses (unless these addresses were sabotaged in the
meantime):

http://evidence.ueuo.com/free_energy.htm
http://evil.thefreehost.biz/free_energy.htm
http://fruit.sitesled.com/free_energy.htm
http://fruit.xphost.org/free_energy.htm
http://god.ez-sites.ws/free_energy.htm
http://karma.freewebpages.org/free_energy.htm
http://memorial.awardspace.info/free_energy.htm
http://newzealand.myfreewebs.net/free_energy.htm
http://nirvana.scienceontheweb.net/free_energy.htm
http://pigs.freehyperspace.com/free_energy.htm
http://parasitism.about.tc/free_energy.htm
http://rubik.hits.io/free_energy.htm
http://tornado.99k.org/free_energy.htm
http://wszewilki.greatnow.com/free_energy.htm


With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

On Mar 1, 10:58 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:
...
> > "In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
> > `Homer J. Simpson
...

Well, firstly you would need to prove that there are such things as
the "laws of thermodynamics". For my best knowledge, whatever you call
by this name, are actually just statistical predictions which
sometimes do work, sometimes refuse to work. A perfect example when
these statistic predictions are disobeyed, are so-called "heat pumps"
which have over 100% efficiency. Also, as I explained this before, our
planet Earth as a whole disobeys these "laws" too.

Thus, since there are already numerous cases identified, when these
supposed "laws" do NOT work, all evidence indicates that the flywheel
perpetually propelled by the Coriolis effect, will be a next such a
case. So let us encourage someone to build one, and to prove that it
actually DOES work in practice against these supposed "laws".

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

janpajak@gmail.com wrote:

> Let us NOT be silly. If a "miaw-miaw" noise comes from a closed bag,
> it still does NOT make sure that there is a cat in that bag.

Is this how you spell "meow" nowadays? Don't let that cat out of the
bag!

S.

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 19:54:59 -0800 (PST), janpajak@gmail.com wrote:

>On Mar 1, 10:58=A0pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
>wrote:
>=2E..
>> > "In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
>> > `Homer J. Simpson
>=2E..
>
>Well, firstly you would need to prove that there are such things as
>the "laws of thermodynamics". For my best knowledge, whatever you call
>by this name, are actually just statistical predictions which
>sometimes do work, sometimes refuse to work. A perfect example when
>these statistic predictions are disobeyed, are so-called "heat pumps"
>which have over 100% efficiency. Also, as I explained this before, our
>planet Earth as a whole disobeys these "laws" too.
>
>Thus, since there are already numerous cases identified, when these
>supposed "laws" do NOT work, all evidence indicates that the flywheel
>perpetually propelled by the Coriolis effect, will be a next such a
>case. So let us encourage someone to build one, and to prove that it
>actually DOES work in practice against these supposed "laws".
>
>With the totaliztic salute,
>Jan Pajak
>

There are no such things as heat pumps which have > 100% efficiency.
There are heat pumps with a COP > 1 .
Maybe you need to learn the differance.

<janpajak@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:b6ed0271-0ef5-45fa-b547-1a2819d3d9ff@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 3, 11:12 am, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
...

>Well, for this slow down of the Earth's rotations can be a lot of
>explanations, not just the natural slow down of the rotational
>velocity of the Earth due to e.g. friction. For example, perhaps in
>these old times the Earth had more than one Moon - as mythology of
>some nations states this. Perhaps these creatures which planted the
>life on the Earth changed the rotational velocity of our planet, so
>that to make it more similar to their own planet. Perhaps in the
>meantime our planet was hit by a large heavenly body which slowed it
>down. There are NO limits to such possibilities! Thus, just claiming
>that there is evidence for the Earth's motion slowing down, without
>having any evidence about what caused this slowing down, is just an
>empty talk.

No, your silly theories are 'empty talk'.  The tidal friction of the moon on 
the earth and it's effect on both the earth's rotation and the orbit of the 
moon are well documented with both theory and direct measurements.  The 
change in kinetic energy of the earth's rotation coincides very well with 
the gain in energy that the moon experiences.

Your ideas on the other hand......

daestrom

<janpajak@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:cc81ea0a-0ae2-4edf-85c7-e4ea95330fb3@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 1, 8:29 am, "dkel...@hotmail.com" <dkel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>You do not seem to look logically at this matter. There is a lot of
>evidence that you actually can extract the energy from such
>perpetually rotating flywheel that is propelled by the Coriolis
>effect.

You might want to learn what the Coriolis effect really is before you start 
trying to spout physics.  What your 'idea' is trying to use to extract 
energy from the earth's rotation is *not* the Coriolis effect.  It is the 
gyroscopic effect.  Tain't the same thing.

Learn some physics.

daestrom

<janpajak@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:53280456-27ae-4df5-af01-239639984099@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 1, 10:58 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:

>Well, firstly you would need to prove that there are such things as
>the "laws of thermodynamics". For my best knowledge, whatever you call
>by this name, are actually just statistical predictions which
>sometimes do work, sometimes refuse to work. A perfect example when
>these statistic predictions are disobeyed, are so-called "heat pumps"
>which have over 100% efficiency. Also, as I explained this before, our
>planet Earth as a whole disobeys these "laws" too.

Thermodynamics explains *very well* exactly how heat pumps work.  But it 
would appear you know *very little* about thermodynamics so you can't tell 
when you're wrong.

>Thus, since there are already numerous cases identified, when these
>supposed "laws" do NOT work, all evidence indicates that the flywheel
>perpetually propelled by the Coriolis effect, will be a next such a
>case. So let us encourage someone to build one, and to prove that it
>actually DOES work in practice against these supposed "laws".

Since there are *not* numerous cases identified when the laws of thermo 
don't work, your argument is based on false premise.  In programming we call 
that "Garbage in, Garbage out".  The rest of your argument is also flawed.

daestrom
P.S.  Look up Coriolis effect and quite using terms you don't understand.

On Mar 4, 10:29 am, "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com>
wrote:
...
> Thermodynamics explains *very well* exactly how heat pumps work.  But it
> would appear you know *very little* about thermodynamics so you can't tell
> when you're wrong.
...

I see that your strategy is to bit me on the terminology, not on the
merit. Obviously, in spite of your refusal to understand how things do
work, you still managed to notice that I am not a native English
speaker - and you take an advantage of this situation. But this write-
up is NOT about the terminology, but about the real possibility which
was just revealed, namely that in fact we can build a perpetual motion
flywheel.

Well, if we forget about the terminology, and get into the merit of
this matter, then whatever name you attach to what the heat pump does,
it still turns out that e.g. a heat pump consumes electrical energy
worth e.g. one dollar, and produces the amount of heat which would be
worth of let say 3 dollars of electrical energy - if the same heat is
produced by a heater working on electrical resistance. So whether you
give to the the outcome of heat pumps work the term "efficiency", or
any other term, still their outpur is over 100% of their imput. Thus,
if we could master the way of propelling such heat pumps with the
thermal energy, instead of electricty, these pumps would not only work
for free, but would also generate for free an excess of thermal
energy. And this is the merit of the entire matter. There are
phenomena, which according to principles that I outlined at the other
thread ( http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
) someone intensely tries to hide, but which (the phenomena) are able
to provide basis for constructing perpetual motion devices. The effect
which I am describiong on this web page, and which you try to
misleadingly name with other terms than the "Coriolis effect", is just
one mongst such processes that are able to yield over 100% efficiency.
So human civilisatioon should do everything in its capabilities to
research these phenomena, instead of discouraging everyone from
looking at them more carefuly. So let us ask again the question which
I already asked at the thread "
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
", namely: who pays you  guys for making water out of brains of these
ones who participate in this discussion group?

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

janpajak@gmail.com wrote:
> it still turns out that e.g. a heat pump consumes electrical energy
> worth e.g. one dollar, and produces the amount of heat which would be
> worth of let say 3 dollars of electrical energy

They do not 'produce' it, they move it.

> - if the same heat is
> produced by a heater working on electrical resistance. So whether you
> give to the the outcome of heat pumps work the term "efficiency", or
> any other term, still their outpur is over 100% of their imput.

It is not. It requires a condenser, 'outside', as a source for that heat.

> So human civilisatioon should do everything in its capabilities to
> research these phenomena, instead of discouraging everyone from
> looking at them more carefuly.

Your premise is that thermodynamics is not well understood. Well, it is. 
And like daestrom said, you should bother to learn some science before 
spewing such claims.

> ", namely: who pays you  guys for making water out of brains of these
> ones who participate in this discussion group?

NO. The participants have 'paid' their dues by investing in an education.

You should try it...

janpajak@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 1, 10:58 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
> ...
> 
>>>"In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
>>>`Homer J. Simpson
> 
> ...
> 
> Well, firstly you would need to prove that there are such things as
> the "laws of thermodynamics". For my best knowledge, whatever you call
> by this name, are actually just statistical predictions which
> sometimes do work, sometimes refuse to work. A perfect example when
> these statistic predictions are disobeyed, are so-called "heat pumps"
> which have over 100% efficiency. Also, as I explained this before, our
> planet Earth as a whole disobeys these "laws" too.

You obviously are ignoring the Law of Conservation or Energy.  In short 
that states that energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be 
changed from one form to another.

> 
> Thus, since there are already numerous cases identified, when these
> supposed "laws" do NOT work, all evidence indicates that the flywheel
> perpetually propelled by the Coriolis effect, will be a next such a
> case. So let us encourage someone to build one, and to prove that it
> actually DOES work in practice against these supposed "laws".
> 
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
> 

By the way, your perpetual motion fly wheel would not work if for no 
other reason than due to both air resistance and friction in the mechanism.

Now stop trying to BS the people on sci.energy who have backgrounds in 
the sciences or engineering.  It only makes you like an even bigger fool 
that we thought you were when you made your first post.

My Simpson's quote aside, I think that Kurt Vonnegut said it best when 
he described perpetual motions machines as "The Complicated Futility of 
Ignorance."

ALV

Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> 
> It is not. It requires a condenser, 'outside', as a source for that heat.
                            ^^^^^^^^^

(add blushy face here.)

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 17:25:51 -0800 (PST), janpajak@gmail.com wrote:

>On Mar 4, 10:29=A0am, "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com>
>wrote:
>=2E..
>> Thermodynamics explains *very well* exactly how heat pumps work. =A0But it=
>
>> would appear you know *very little* about thermodynamics so you can't tell=
>
>> when you're wrong.
>=2E..
>
>I see that your strategy is to bit me on the terminology, not on the
>merit. Obviously, in spite of your refusal to understand how things do
>work, you still managed to notice that I am not a native English
>speaker - and you take an advantage of this situation. But this write-
>up is NOT about the terminology, but about the real possibility which
>was just revealed, namely that in fact we can build a perpetual motion
>flywheel.
>
>Well, if we forget about the terminology, and get into the merit of
>this matter, then whatever name you attach to what the heat pump does,
>it still turns out that e.g. a heat pump consumes electrical energy
>worth e.g. one dollar, and produces the amount of heat which would be
>worth of let say 3 dollars of electrical energy - if the same heat is
>produced by a heater working on electrical resistance. So whether you
>give to the the outcome of heat pumps work the term "efficiency", or
>any other term, still their outpur is over 100% of their imput. Thus,
>if we could master the way of propelling such heat pumps with the
>thermal energy, instead of electricty, these pumps would not only work
>for free, but would also generate for free an excess of thermal
>energy. And this is the merit of the entire matter. There are
>phenomena, which according to principles that I outlined at the other
>thread ( http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f4=
>3b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
>) someone intensely tries to hide, but which (the phenomena) are able
>to provide basis for constructing perpetual motion devices. The effect
>which I am describiong on this web page, and which you try to
>misleadingly name with other terms than the "Coriolis effect", is just
>one mongst such processes that are able to yield over 100% efficiency.
>So human civilisatioon should do everything in its capabilities to
>research these phenomena, instead of discouraging everyone from
>looking at them more carefuly. So let us ask again the question which
>I already asked at the thread "
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d=
>8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
>", namely: who pays you  guys for making water out of brains of these
>ones who participate in this discussion group?
>
>With the totaliztic salute,
>Jan Pajak



A heatpump is called a heatpump for a very good reason.
It pumps heat.
The input to a heatpump is to use your example 1KW of electrical
energy and 2 KW of heat energy, and the output is 3 KW of heat energy.
Energy in = energy out.
Entropy is increased.
Both laws of thermodynamics are conserved.
Try running your heatpump at a temp of 0 deg K and see how much heat
comes out of it.

In message 
<9dd31140-fdf2-4089-bfb1-edd1e423bd2e@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, 
janpajak@gmail.com writes
>On Mar 1, 10:12�pm, Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhund...@elves.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> > Instead of bleating about this on usenet why not build one, sell the
>> > power to a utility and retire to the Riveria on the income generated
>> > (no pun). � You could live on Moet et Chandon and pate d'fois gras
>> > while laying endless nubile young wenches. �But there's the rub. �You
>> > can't can you? �The practical proof of the theoretical pudding is in
>> > the eating.
>...
>> He can't build one, because it is 
>>patented:http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5313850-claims.html
>...
>
>I would NOT scare potential builders of this perpetual motion flywheel
>just by telling them that it was patented. This is because every
>patent has its life span, and also because every patent can be walk
>around by utilising some specific technical details for which it is
>not restricted. Therefore, the existence of this patent only should
>encourage various hobbyists to build this flywheel, as it proves that
>it actually DOES work as a perpetual motion device. The patent also
>proves that all this spitting done by some individuals on the idea
>presented here is actually out of place and unjustified. The flywheeel
>will really work - no matter what some well masked individuals are
>telling us about it.

Even USPTO is no longer so completely dumb as to grant perpetual motion 
machine patents any more. Though it doesn't stop them granting new 
patents for blindingly obvious and prior art invalidated software. They 
will still grant a patent on almost anything if your money is the right 
colour.
>
>I personally cannot build this flywheel for the simple reason that I
>do NOT have conditions for building it. After all, in order to build
>something mechanical, one needs to have space, tools, materials,
>money, time, practical skills, and many other encouraging conditions.

Like living in a universe where it is possible to build one? I suspect 
you will find that it is an even more non-trivial undertaking to create 
a new universe.

Regards,
-- 
Martin Brown

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

<janpajak@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:d6e792c9-190b-4e5d-a64b-dec830e7df13@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 4, 10:29 am, "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com>
wrote:
...
> Thermodynamics explains *very well* exactly how heat pumps work. But it
> would appear you know *very little* about thermodynamics so you can't tell
> when you're wrong.
...

I see that your strategy is to bit me on the terminology, not on the
merit. Obviously, in spite of your refusal to understand how things do
work, you still managed to notice that I am not a native English
speaker - and you take an advantage of this situation. But this write-
up is NOT about the terminology, but about the real possibility which
was just revealed, namely that in fact we can build a perpetual motion
flywheel.

Well, if we forget about the terminology, and get into the merit of
this matter, then whatever name you attach to what the heat pump does,
it still turns out that e.g. a heat pump consumes electrical energy
worth e.g. one dollar, and produces the amount of heat which would be
worth of let say 3 dollars of electrical energy - if the same heat is
produced by a heater working on electrical resistance. So whether you
give to the the outcome of heat pumps work the term "efficiency", or
any other term, still their outpur is over 100% of their imput. Thus,
if we could master the way of propelling such heat pumps with the
thermal energy, instead of electricty, these pumps would not only work
for free, but would also generate for free an excess of thermal
energy. And this is the merit of the entire matter. There are
phenomena, which according to principles that I outlined at the other
thread ( 
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
) someone intensely tries to hide, but which (the phenomena) are able
to provide basis for constructing perpetual motion devices. The effect
which I am describiong on this web page, and which you try to
misleadingly name with other terms than the "Coriolis effect", is just
one mongst such processes that are able to yield over 100% efficiency.
So human civilisatioon should do everything in its capabilities to
research these phenomena, instead of discouraging everyone from
looking at them more carefuly. So let us ask again the question which
I already asked at the thread "
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
", namely: who pays you  guys for making water out of brains of these
ones who participate in this discussion group?


Your misunderstanding of basic physics is monumental. Please feel free to throw 
your life savings into these ideas. You will never see your money again.

Things just don't work the way you think they will.

On Feb 27, 10:38 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
> generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
> one.

They can't.

However, the next best thing would be a machine that outlasts
us, such as a solar-powered steam turbine.  It would be
indistinguishable from a pmm, since no one would live
long enough to see it run down.

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:03:58 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
<fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote:

>However, the next best thing would be a machine that outlasts
>us, such as a solar-powered steam turbine.  It would be
>indistinguishable from a pmm, since no one would live
>long enough to see it run down.

It would be readily distinguishable from a PPM, since it would have an
obvious external energy source. A machine that is engineered to run
forever isn't a PPM. A PPM must produce more energy than it consumes,
which is clearly impossible. (Technically, a PPM could simply operate at
100% efficiency, which isn't impossible, just not feasible. But
operating at 100% efficiency isn't useful, since you can't use the
machine to do any work.)

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:f5050aed-fded-4e32-9e3f-2b1773338ef9@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
| On Feb 27, 10:38 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
| > Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
| > generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
| > one.
|
| They can't.
|
| However, the next best thing would be a machine that outlasts
| us, such as a solar-powered steam turbine.  It would be
| indistinguishable from a pmm, since no one would live
| long enough to see it run down.

Why would one use steam when solar cells are readily
available?
  http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0605/iss2_sts114_big.jpg

But anyway, what's the big deal here?
You are saying (the equivalent of) a car engine will run forever
if you continue to supply fuel. It won't, it'll wear out. The PMM
has to run without energy input of any kind. 

On Mar 5, 5:38 am, "Bob F" <bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> Your misunderstanding of basic physics is monumental. Please feel free to throw
> your life savings into these ideas. You will never see your money again.
...
> Things just don't work the way you think they will.

Well, on the totaliztic web page named "free_energy.htm" several
working prototypes of free energy devices are already described. For
example, consider the telekinetic "thesta-distatica" described over
there, or the "telekinetic boiler" described also on the totaliztic
web page "boiler.htm". So som people actually invested in these
devices and got a success in building them, although were later
stopped by these evil creatures which I described on the thread
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
(as we can see these creatures act also on this discussion group).

I again repeat here that I do NOT have conditions required to develop
these machines. But I have conditions to describe them and to explain
their operation to those people who can build them. I researched them
for many years. I also saw working prototypes of some amongst these
devices with my own eyes. And in spite that there is such thing as the
"curse of inventors", behind which actually hide nasty but intelligent
creatures, it is highly advisable to our civilisation to build these
devices. These devices are the key to saving the humanity from death
because of the lack of energy. We need these devices for the sake of
our children and grandchildren.

We must remember that various pseudo-scientists who know weel
terminology, but whose minds were cemented, were criticising the
possibility of building any new device or any new machine. And always
their claims turned out untrue. If we believe these pseudo-scientists
who had lod voices and used good terminology, then "flying machnes"
supposedly were impossible, so were impossible steel boats and
locomotives that do NOT use "horse-kind of legs", etc., etc. In eyes
of close-minded scientists everything is imnpossible. What is the most
horryfying, that worsking prototypes of several different kinds of
"perpetual motion devices" and "free energy generators" are already
build and working - for details see the totaliztic web page
"free_energy.htm". But still various individuals claims that building
of these devices cannot be accomplished. So the history repeats -
after all, when the first airplane of the Wright brother has flows,
the "Scientific American" published an article that such flying
machines are impossible to be build.

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

<janpajak@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fcd2092a-5fc6-4b16-a5f1-
We must remember that various pseudo-scientists who know weel
terminology, but whose minds were cemented, were criticising the
possibility of building any new device or any new machine. And always
their claims turned out untrue. If we believe these pseudo-scientists
who had lod voices and used good terminology, then "flying machnes"
supposedly were impossible, so were impossible steel boats and
locomotives that do NOT use "horse-kind of legs", etc., etc. In eyes
of close-minded scientists everything is imnpossible. What is the most
horryfying, that worsking prototypes of several different kinds of
"perpetual motion devices" and "free energy generators" are already
build and working - for details see the totaliztic web page
"free_energy.htm". But still various individuals claims that building
of these devices cannot be accomplished. So the history repeats -
after all, when the first airplane of the Wright brother has flows,
the "Scientific American" published an article that such flying
machines are impossible to be build.

If you think that perpetual motion is on the same order as steel boats, you are 
sadly wrong. I have no doubt that new energy sources will be developed. I do 
doubt that any of the perpetual motion machine ideas will lead to any new 
sources of energy.

This type of arguement is highly unlikely to convince anyone with a basic 
knowledge of physics or science.

Bob F wrote:
> <janpajak@gmail.com> wrote...

What are you doing?
<snip>

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 08:38:42 -0800, "Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
><janpajak@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:d6e792c9-190b-4e5d-a64b-dec830e7df13@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>On Mar 4, 10:29 am, "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com>
>wrote:
>...
>> Thermodynamics explains *very well* exactly how heat pumps work. But it
>> would appear you know *very little* about thermodynamics so you can't tell
>> when you're wrong.
>...
>
>I see that your strategy is to bit me on the terminology, not on the
>merit. Obviously, in spite of your refusal to understand how things do
>work, you still managed to notice that I am not a native English
>speaker - and you take an advantage of this situation. But this write-
>up is NOT about the terminology, but about the real possibility which
>was just revealed, namely that in fact we can build a perpetual motion
>flywheel.
>
>Well, if we forget about the terminology, and get into the merit of
>this matter, then whatever name you attach to what the heat pump does,
>it still turns out that e.g. a heat pump consumes electrical energy
>worth e.g. one dollar, and produces the amount of heat which would be
>worth of let say 3 dollars of electrical energy - if the same heat is
>produced by a heater working on electrical resistance. So whether you
>give to the the outcome of heat pumps work the term "efficiency", or
>any other term, still their outpur is over 100% of their imput. Thus,
>if we could master the way of propelling such heat pumps with the
>thermal energy, instead of electricty, these pumps would not only work
>for free, but would also generate for free an excess of thermal
>energy. And this is the merit of the entire matter. There are
>phenomena, which according to principles that I outlined at the other
>thread ( 
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
>) someone intensely tries to hide, but which (the phenomena) are able
>to provide basis for constructing perpetual motion devices. The effect
>which I am describiong on this web page, and which you try to
>misleadingly name with other terms than the "Coriolis effect", is just
>one mongst such processes that are able to yield over 100% efficiency.
>So human civilisatioon should do everything in its capabilities to
>research these phenomena, instead of discouraging everyone from
>looking at them more carefuly. So let us ask again the question which
>I already asked at the thread "
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
>", namely: who pays you  guys for making water out of brains of these
>ones who participate in this discussion group?
>
>
>Your misunderstanding of basic physics is monumental. Please feel free to throw 
>your life savings into these ideas. You will never see your money again.
>
>Things just don't work the way you think they will.
>
>

Indded they dont.
For a good laugh go here.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

Its somewhat sad the amount of effort that people put in to trying to
build things that simply havnt no chance of working.

Im somewhat surprised though that no one has yet suggested using giant

Crookes Radiometers to generate electricity.

janpajak@gmail.com wrote:

> Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
> generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
> one. So it took a UFOnaut to tell us how to build a simplest
> mechanical perpetual motion generator. This alien-technology generator
> is described (in the Polish language) at the thread

I know some Polish folks and I wonder if you realise that some Polish people
have a wicked sense of humour? :)

The only example of perpetual motion in nature is the
electro-magnetic wave. 

TMA wrote:
> The only example of perpetual motion in nature is the
> electro-magnetic wave. 

Maybe not even that. A physical object, such as a speeding
bullet, loses energy and slows down due to friction in the
atmosphere. Perhaps electro-magnetic waves experience a
kind of ether friction and lose energy as they pass through
space. Light waves losing energy would show as red-shifted
so the more distant an object (star or galaxy) is in space
the more energy the light would have lost getting here and
the more red-shifted it would appear.

Anthony

TMA wrote:
> The only example of perpetual motion in nature is the
> electro-magnetic wave. 
> 
> 

   Baaaaad example!

      1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
      2. photons propagate at c
      3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)

Anthony Matonak wrote:
> TMA wrote:
>> The only example of perpetual motion in nature is the
>> electro-magnetic wave. 
> 
> Maybe not even that. A physical object, such as a speeding
> bullet, loses energy and slows down due to friction in the
> atmosphere. Perhaps electro-magnetic waves experience a
> kind of ether friction and lose energy as they pass through
> space. Light waves losing energy would show as red-shifted
> so the more distant an object (star or galaxy) is in space
> the more energy the light would have lost getting here and
> the more red-shifted it would appear.
> 
> Anthony


   Actually they don't.... however photons can lose energy
   to to the cosmic expansion of the universe.




   Tired light --- has just failed two crucial tests

   Ref: Volume 292, Number 5526, Issue of 29 Jun 2001, p. 2414.
     Copyright � 2001 by The American Association for the Advancement of Science

   ASTROPHYSICS: 'Tired-Light' Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired

   Charles Seife

   The "tired-light" hypothesis, mainstay of a dwindling band
   of contrarians who deny the big bang and its corollary, the
   expanding universe, has suffered a one-two punch.
   Observations of supernovae and of galaxies provide the best
   direct evidence that the universe is truly expanding and
   promise to shed light on the evolution of galaxies to boot.

   "The expansion is real. It's not due to an unknown physical
   process. That is the conclusion," says Allan Sandage, an
   astrophysicist at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena,
   California, and leader of the galaxy study.

   It's a conclusion that most astronomers reached long ago. In
   1929, Edwin Hubble announced that light from distant
   galaxies is redder than light from nearby ones. Hubble and
   others took the redshifts as evidence that the universe is
   expanding, causing distant galaxies to speed away faster
   than nearby ones. To an observer on Earth, they reasoned,
   this would appear to stretch the wavelength of their light,
   just as the sound of a police-car siren seems to drop in
   frequency as it speeds away. However, within a few months of
   the publication of Hubble's paper, astrophysicist Franz
   Zwicky came up with an alternative explanation: that
   galaxies' light reddens because it loses energy as it passes
   through space. In Zwicky's tired-light scenario, the
   universe doesn't expand at all. Distant galaxies are red not
   because they are moving, but because their light has
   traveled farther and gotten pooped along the way.

   Beyond the fringe. "Tired light"--a radical alternative to
   the standard expanding-universe model of the cosmos--has
   just failed two crucial tests.

   When experimenters first measured the cosmic microwave
   background more than 30 years ago, they found that the
   radiation was too dim to be explained by Zwicky's
   hypothesis. That realization relegated "tired light" firmly
   to the fringe of physics, but scientists still sought more
   direct proofs of the expansion of the cosmos.

   Two new papers provide the best direct evidence yet. The
   first, slated to appear in Astrophysical Journal, measures
   the brightening and dimming of a certain type of supernova.
   Thanks to Einstein's theory of relativity, if distant
   supernovae are speeding away from us, they will appear to
   flare and fade at a more leisurely pace than close-by ones.
   A team of scientists led by Gerson Goldhaber of the Lawrence
   Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in Berkeley, California,
   has shown that this is, indeed, the case with 42 recently
   analyzed supernovae. "It's such a clean-looking curve," says
   Saul Perlmutter, a member of the LBNL team. "It's very
   unambiguous."

   In the second study, Sandage and Lori Lubin of Johns Hopkins
   University in Baltimore analyzed space-based measurements of
   the surface brightness of galaxies. Both the standard
   expanding-universe and the tired-light theory, they
   realized, agree that redshifted light should make distant
   galaxies look dimmer than they really are. In an expanding
   universe, however, time dilation and other relativistic
   distortions will also dim distant galaxies, making them
   appear much fainter than tired-light theory dictates. What's
   more, young stars--and thus young galaxies--tend to be
   considerably brighter than old ones. When that extra
   brightness is taken into account, the observations match
   expanding-universe predictions, as Lubin and Sandage will
   report in Astronomical Journal. For the tired-light theory
   to be correct, young galaxies would have to be dimmer,
   rather than brighter, than old ones. "There's no way to
   explain that," says Lubin.

   Although not surprising in themselves, the results are
   useful for "tidying things up in our cosmology," says
   Michael Pahre, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian
   Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who
   performed a similar surface-brightness experiment in the
   mid-1990s. By comparing the expanding-universe theory's
   predictions with observed values of the surface brightness
   of distant galaxies, scientists can work backward and figure
   out how much brighter those galaxies must have been earlier
   in the history of the universe.

   Even so, researchers doubt whether the results will convert
   tired-light diehards. "I don't think it's possible to
   convince people who are holding on to tired light," says Ned
   Wright, an astrophysicist at the University of California,
   Los Angeles. "I would say it is more a problem for a
   psychological journal than for Science."

On Mar 6, 5:48 am, "TMA" <M...@tnospam.net> wrote:
> The only example of perpetual motion in nature is the
> electro-magnetic wave.

Actually NOT the only example. Another examples include: the path of
every planet around the Sun, the path of our Moon around the Earth,
the daily rotation of the Earth, and many more everlasting phenomena.
Thus, if an inventor can tap to any of these phenomena, as the
"perpetually rotating flywheel" described here does, then this person
can draw free energy forever (at least in human history scale). The
flywheel described in this thread is drawing its energy from the
Earh's rotational motion. So it practically will rotate forever (in
human understanding of this word), and will supply its energy forever.
In the slightly modified version of a cascade of such flywheels, it
may even supply a reasonably amount of free energy.

One should also realise, that there is omnly a very small difference
between the operation of so-called "renewable energy generators" (e.g.
consider a windmill), and "perpetual motion generators" (e.g. consider
the flywheel discussed here). The main difference is in the
reliability of energy and motion supply. For example, a "windmill"
works only then there is a wind of an appropriate force. In turn the
"perpetually rotating flywheel" described here, rotates forever. But
principles of both these devices are almost the same. So there is NO
reason to claim that one will work, while the other will NOT work. The
only difference is that one of these two devices was already build and
everyone knows that it works, while the other one was NOT build yet,
so some close-minded pseudo-scientists can claim that it will NOT
work. But when this other is also build, then everyone will rush to
benefit from it, even these sceptical ones which now claim that it is
NOT going to work.

Please notice that the newest description of this flywheel is provided
at blogs of totalizm, which can be viewed at following internet
addresses:
http://www.getablog.net/totalizm
http://totalizm.wordpress.com
http://totalizm.myblog.net
http://www.newfreehost.com/weblog/?u=god

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

P.S. For other threads of my authorship, which discuss similar
"controversial" topics, please see addresses:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/0b85905d2dc9f083#c374dc041f3c5fdf
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/8040cef26d37261f#de22942cb8fe3aee
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64

janpajak@gmail.com wrote:

> Actually NOT the only example. Another examples include: the path of
> every planet around the Sun, the path of our Moon around the Earth,
> the daily rotation of the Earth, and many more everlasting phenomena.
> Thus, if an inventor can tap to any of these phenomena, as the
> "perpetually rotating flywheel" described here does, then this person
> can draw free energy forever (at least in human history scale). 

   Not free energy... but at the expense of orbital deterioration.

On Mar 5, 8:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Actually NOT the only example. Another examples include: the path of
> > every planet around the Sun, the path of our Moon around the Earth,
> > the daily rotation of the Earth, and many more everlasting phenomena.
> > Thus, if an inventor can tap to any of these phenomena, as the
> > "perpetually rotating flywheel" described here does, then this person
> > can draw free energy forever (at least in human history scale).
>
>    Not free energy... but at the expense of orbital deterioration.

Hi Sam
 You'd still have to tie the flywheel to something outside
the earth. Conservation of Momentum says that you just
won't change the total. Where is the momentum going
in his magic flywheel??
Dwight

Warning - at least one of the sites listed in this posting causes a virus alert 
from AVG antivirus.

On Mar 6, 7:51 pm, "dkel...@hotmail.com" <dkel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>  You'd still have to tie the flywheel to something outside
> the earth.
...

This particular flywheel (that we discuss here) is already tied up to
the kind of substance which the Concept of Dipolar Gravity calls
"counter-matter" (for details see the totaliztic web page named
"dipolar_gravity.htm"). Thus the flywheel which has the axis of
rotation alligned appropriately (means maintains it parallel to the
axis of rotation of the Earth), is working in a different set of
coordinates than the Earth does. This is why such a flywheel remains
motionless, while the Earth rotates in its daily cycle. This is also
why such a flywheel looks as if it rotates in relation to the Earth.
After all, we already know the above behaviour from the action of the
Coriolis effect, as this behaviour represents the mechanism which
propells the the Coriolis effect.

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

On Mar 6, 2:37 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 6, 7:51 pm, "dkel...@hotmail.com" <dkel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...>  You'd still have to tie the flywheel to something outside
> > the earth.
>
> ...
>
> This particular flywheel (that we discuss here) is already tied up to
> the kind of substance which the Concept of Dipolar Gravity calls
> "counter-matter" (for details see the totaliztic web page named
> "dipolar_gravity.htm"). Thus the flywheel which has the axis of
> rotation alligned appropriately (means maintains it parallel to the
> axis of rotation of the Earth), is working in a different set of
> coordinates than the Earth does. This is why such a flywheel remains
> motionless, while the Earth rotates in its daily cycle. This is also
> why such a flywheel looks as if it rotates in relation to the Earth.
> After all, we already know the above behaviour from the action of the
> Coriolis effect, as this behaviour represents the mechanism which
> propells the the Coriolis effect.
>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak


Hi
 What kind of junk are you reading ( dipolar_gravity.htm ).
 I will restate the problem.

 First, force without motion is not power.

 Second, a force applied to tha axis of an otherwise free flywheel
   will case a perpendicular motion ( not power, vectors are at 90
 degrees ). This means your machine will need to restrict the motion
 of the flywheel to some angle like 45 degrees between the force and
 free motion. At this angle, over time, the flywheel will precess
until
 it is exactly aligned with the polar axis.

 Third, at this time, the rotation of the earth will no longer effect
the flywheel.
 End of game.

 Fourth, there has been nothing ever shown to prove that conservation
of momentum
has ever, ever been violated. You need to work with reality. Anyone
can
publish a bunch of junk science on the web.

 Fifth, Coriolis effect has been completely described with Newtonian
mechanics
and does not in any way shape or form violate the laws of conservation
of
momentum. It doesn't need any special outside junk like
dipolar_gravity
to understand it. Why pull this junk in when it is completely
predicable with
known science. Coriolis is simple inertia. Always was and always will
be.
I believe the statement, " an object in motion tends to stay in
motion" is
enough to show why we have the Coriolis effect. It also explains
Foucault's
pendulum.

 These have been explained to you several times and all you can use to
justify that you are right is some junk science that has nothing to do
with
real observed effects. This is why I asked you to run some experiments
with simple setups that don't require things like the entire earth.
You can
easily create a rotation frame of reference with simple junk
parts( swivel
chair ).
 You can easily create a nice flywheel from an old bicycle wheel. You
can then easily
prove to yourself that it won't work. You don't have to depend on
anything
from junk web pages. You can use real world experiments!
 I have told you why it won't work and I've proposed experiments you
can
run yourself to show you why it doesn't work. I've run similar
experiments
many years ago in science class so I know how they work.
 I can see that you really want this to work but I can only show you
how
to think, I can't make you actually think. The laws of motion and
inertia
haven't changed since man has been looking at things. If someone
tells you different, they are either liars or mistaken( most seem to
be liars ).
Dwight