Jump to content
Brett Nortj

Perpetual motion engines.

Recommended Posts

Previously, I have come up with two perpetual motion engine methods;

[1] The oscillation method. This would be where we apply force to one side of the oscillator, and have it bounce back at nearly the same amount of energy, applying it into the 'mechanism.' This is added to by the addition of more energy from the source to a new area, maybe in a reversed circle, where the rotation will send more energy than was initial injected to the system. This comes from the balls rebounding and producing, basically, [90%] then [80%] then [70%] and so forth amounts of the initial energy as the balls bounce back and forth.

[2] The suction method. This would be where we observe the effects of sucking water through a pipe, or, oil, any liquid actually, and then making it go uphill or upwards. This is based on something every handyman knows about, and, my dad taught me about long ago. It is with great luck that I remembered this at the time of trying to come up with perpetual motion. he liquid goes up the funnel, due to applied pressure, and, then with the effects of gravity, assist in falling motion, of course.

Those are my best methods, let's work on some more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither are perpetual motion engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DrP said:

Neither are perpetual motion engines.

Not yet, but they do display the possibility of founding two perpetual mechanisms, yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You lose energy resetting the system. That is the issue with perpetual motion.

What you gain back is limited to 'nearly the same amount of energy' rather than the 100% that is necessary to continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

You lose energy resetting the system. That is the issue with perpetual motion.

What you gain back is limited to 'nearly the same amount of energy' rather than the 100% that is necessary to continue.

With each case you genrate more than you put in, like cold fusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brett Nortj said:

Previously, I have come up with two perpetual motion engine methods;

 

So that's twice more that you were wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Brett Nortj said:

With each case you genrate more than you put in, like cold fusion.

Cold fusion (1) doesn't work and (2) was never considered to be perpetual motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brett Nortj said:

With each case you genrate more than you put in, like cold fusion.

No. You put in more than you lose with each cycle, but if you have to put anything in, it's not perpetual. When you stop putting energy in, the system runs down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swansont said:

No. You put in more than you lose with each cycle, but if you have to put anything in, it's not perpetual. When you stop putting energy in, the system runs down.

I thought a perpetual motion engine was supposed to generate more energy than comes in?

These do.

[1] The oscillator will generate about one hundred and fifty percent of the energy it is exposed to, at least, in a cylindrical system like that.

[2] The suction method will require only the power of a car ventilator, to suck the liquid up and return it to the mechanism for turning the gears. This requires only one suck, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Brett Nortj said:

I thought a perpetual motion engine was supposed to generate more energy than comes in?

These do.

No, they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Brett Nortj said:

[1] The oscillator will generate about one hundred and fifty percent of the energy it is exposed to, at least, in a cylindrical system like that.

Why hasn't your model been tested? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Why hasn't your model been tested? 

I am not sure, I lack the time to invest, but think a lawyer contacted me about it a while ago, memory loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brett Nortj said:

[2] The suction method. This would be where we...

 

4 hours ago, Brett Nortj said:

[1] The oscillation method. This would be where we...

OK, Brett. Those are the would be.  What are the is ?

- Define perpetual.

- How many have you sold ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brett Nortj said:

I am not sure, I lack the time to invest, but think a lawyer contacted me about it a while ago, memory loss.

Oh well, it would only be the most Earth-shattering discovery of the millenia, if it were true. But I understand about how busy you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Externet said:

 

OK, Brett. Those are the would be.  What are the is ?

- Define perpetual.

- How many have you sold ?

I don't know what this word is, but I read about it on the net, what the goals were. Then, I applied logic, of course. No, I haven;t sold any, as they are only 'intellectual property.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brett Nortj said:

I don't know what this word is, but I read about it on the net, what the goals were. Then, I applied logic, of course. No, I haven;t sold any, as they are only 'intellectual property.'

Logic is not enough (especially when it is flawed).

Step one: learn physics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brett Nortj said:

I don't know what this word is, but I read about it on the net, what the goals were. Then, I applied logic, of course.

How about applying physics?

3 hours ago, Brett Nortj said:

No, I haven;t sold any, as they are only 'intellectual property.'

Then you have nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swansont said:

How about applying physics?

Then you have nothing. 

Ah, professor Charles! So glad you replied... Yes, I deducted that this would mean that the motion is 'pending, per, mutual interactions' if you will?

I have a lawyer... he keeps all my stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Brett Nortj said:

Ah, professor Charles! So glad you replied... Yes, I deducted that this would mean that the motion is 'pending, per, mutual interactions' if you will?

I have a lawyer... he keeps all my stuff.

So apart from knowing nothing about physics, you were gullible enough to let a lawyer convince you to pay him for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.