exchemist

What a pity this description is such lazily written crap. I was looking forward to a nice perpetual motion machine to analyse. It seems to be traditional at Christmas. 🙂

I’ll add this to my list of Questions-To-Which-The-Answer-Is-“No”.

When the weight pulls the lever down, the centre of gravity of the counterweight rises. Work done is force x distance through which it is applied. In this case that will be the weight of your little weight x the vertical distance it drops as it pulls the device over. That will be equal to the weight of the counterweight x the vertical distance by which its centre of gravity rises. What you done is trade gravitational potential energy (GPE) of the weight for an equal amount of GPE of the counterweight. The force the lever exerts on the sled will depend on how far up the lever the string is attached. The higher up this is the weaker the force, because it swings through a longer arc , i.e. a longer distance. Again the principle is that the energy (GPE) to do work will equal force x distance, so the greater the distance the less the force it exerts. You can fix the string low down to get more force, but then it will move through a smaller distance. That’s the trade-off. This is the principle of anything involving leverage, whether a simple lever or a gear set. It is hard to work out the position of the centre of gravity of the counterweight and the amount by which it rises, but you don’t need to. You just need to measure the height of the point of attachment of the string and take the ratio of that to the distance to the top, where your weight was hung. For example if the string is attached halfway up, the force it exerts on the sled will be double the weight of the weight. If it is 1/3 the way up, the force will be 3x. And so on.

OK I see. I had overlooked the borehole aspect.

How would this relate to the temperature fluctuations of a large river?

I think the point being made is that you can't use Feynman diagrams to model thermodynamics. Where there are dissipative processes, you have intrinsic irreversibility.

Good point. And, thinking a bit harder about this, climate change is expected not just to warm the climate on average but also create greater extremes. And of course it will be during extreme cold that the demand for heat will be greatest - and thus the cooling effect on the river as well. So one would probably need to limit heat extraction projects based on the cooling effect at extremely low temperatures in winter.

The article I read claims it will only chill the river by 0.1C. (Which in view of global warming would if anything fractionally hold temperatures closer to previous values, but only to a pretty negligible extent. They are growing pinot noir now quite successfully along the Rhine, I understand (spätburgunder). I've got a couple of bottles in the cellar but have not yet tried them.

The Russians have quite an operation going using fakery and bots to sow civil discord in "western" countries. I have little doubt they will be piling in on this with all sorts of crap, to crank up both antisemitism and islamophobia and to distract governments with domestic strife. As with aircraft crashes I suspect it pays to wait for an authoritative story to emerge.

Obviously a joke - or at least facetious. "Culinary theology", "symbolic botany" etc.

And do I detect yet another bot-inspired “framework”? 🙄

I don’t understand the question. Can you provide some background and more detail?

All of which is to say that indeed a scientific theory cannot be patented. All this AI slop of yours is saying, in characteristically prolix style, is that it is only physical embodiments of some kind, i.e. inventions, that rely on a theory, which are patentable. The theory itself cannot be.

No, because measurement involves interaction with the particle, which affects its state, changing the outcome of subsequent measurements. This inability (usually) to measure without affecting the thing being measured is known as the "observer effect". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

OK thanks, I’ll dig around and see if I’ve pressed a button by accident at some point. So site settings is what I need to look for. Anyway, stand down , just a goose, eh? 😁

Why would it do that just for one website?

Yeah, it's curious. I find that nothing "downloads" when I access the site via the iPad. It's only on the laptop. And if I enter the web address manually on the laptop, it asks me if I want to authorise a download from the site. I don't get this with other websites. Maybe I should clear the cookies and see if that gets rid of it.

Hmm, that’s good. Perhaps it’s my laptop that is on the blink. I’ll investigate with other sites and check.

On a mac , whenever a download from a website takes place, you see a little thingie move rapidly across the screen to the top right and vanish. And when I checked the downloads file, a new file had indeed appeared, with a time stamp that corresponded. As I say , 175kb in size. This does not happen when you just click on a website.

I have just tried to access the Rationalwiki website and was alarmed to see that by clicking on it something instantly downloaded itself onto my laptop. When I checked the downloads file all I saw was a 175kb file called Main Page. I deleted it and tried again with the same result. Does anyone have any idea why this might be happening? My first slightly paranoid thought was of spyware.

The most obvious error is that your device is not lifting the 10.5oz sled. It is moving it sideways, using what looks like a roller. The force needs to achieve that only has to overcome rolling and a bit of sliding friction, not the entire weight of the sled. So the work done is not what you have said it is, but far less. In fact we know it can't be more than 3.22 oz-cm.

OK, but the claim you make about achieving this larger mechanical output (by which I presume you mean a larger force, but working over a shorter distance) is evidently key to what you regard as your invention. So you need diagrams or a description of how that is brought about. The picture you provided doesn't seem to show this at all.

Tesla was wrong about a lot of things. He is also a notorious favourite of cranks. One suspects the two things may not be unrelated. 😁 Coming to your question, your opening premise is incorrect. Everything is not "made of energy". Energy is just a property of a physical system, like momentum. It is not "stuff". You can't have a jug of energy. Energy has to be the energy of something. Secondly, there is no "law of attraction" in science. Though there seems to be something of the kind talked about by people who go in for woo. So, all in all, I suggest you rethink your question - or take it to a woo forum.

Yes I think that may be it. To the mass media, that horse had long since bolted, I suspect.

Yes that is exactly what I had in mind. But I didn’t know about the Hunan market samples. That is interesting. I wonder how widely disseminated those findings were. Certainly didn’t seem to hit the headlines in the UK.