new renewable energy tech coppy righted b lifting a carriage carries magnet 6.3 meters then send it down incline of 630 meters under coils along side it to generate electricity by induction for long time , full system gives 23.8 giga watt for 63 m/sec speed in ten seconds and raising the carriage of 63 kilograms spens 2800 wat in 1 sec , facebook newman orion and youtube , see the videos please .

Moderator Note

“Go see these other sites” isn’t how this works, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Yeah right !
Because Facebook and YouTube are peer reviewed sources.
( I wouldn't waste my time )

11 hours ago, newman.orion said:

new renewable energy tech coppy righted b lifting a carriage carries magnet 6.3 meters then send it down incline of 630 meters under coils along side it to generate electricity by induction for long time , full system gives 23.8 giga watt for 63 m/sec speed in ten seconds and raising the carriage of 63 kilograms spens 2800 wat in 1 sec , facebook newman orion and youtube , see the videos please .

If you can't be bothered to read the site rules here about posting before you post anything here then why should I be bothered to read anything you post here or anywhere else ?

Edited Saturday at 11:16 AM4 days by studiot

11 hours ago, newman.orion said:

new renewable energy tech coppy righted b lifting a carriage carries magnet 6.3 meters then send it down incline of 630 meters under coils along side it to generate electricity by induction for long time , full system gives 23.8 giga watt for 63 m/sec speed in ten seconds and raising the carriage of 63 kilograms spens 2800 wat in 1 sec , facebook newman orion and youtube , see the videos please .

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. 🙂

40 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I was looking forward to a nice perpetual motion machine to analyse.

Yes, I enjoy analysing "perpetual motion" machines. I actually came across one which I could not debunk without invoking a principle that I was not previously aware of. The principle I invoked was that a focused image of an object cannot be brighter than the object itself.

1 hour ago, KJW said:

Yes, I enjoy analysing "perpetual motion" machines. I actually came across one which I could not debunk without invoking a principle that I was not previously aware of. The principle I invoked was that a focused image of an object cannot be brighter than the object itself.

This rings a bell. I think you may have mentioned it before. Maybe it was in the context of @Prajna ’s machine with magnets, the one he tried to make before AI drove him bonkers.

2 hours ago, KJW said:

Yes, I enjoy analysing "perpetual motion" machines. I actually came across one which I could not debunk without invoking a principle that I was not previously aware of. The principle I invoked was that a focused image of an object cannot be brighter than the object itself.

It’s a version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics; you would be spontaneously heating an object with a cooler object. i.e. focusing sunlight will never get you above ~6000K

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s a version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics; you would be spontaneously heating an object with a cooler object. i.e. focusing sunlight will never get you above ~6000K

That's why I'm a member; you can gain valuable insight even from an otherwise worthless thread.

18 minutes ago, exchemist said:

  2 hours ago, KJW said:

Yes, I enjoy analysing "perpetual motion" machines. I actually came across one which I could not debunk without invoking a principle that I was not previously aware of. The principle I invoked was that a focused image of an object cannot be brighter than the object itself.

This rings a bell. I think you may have mentioned it before. Maybe it was in the context of @Prajna ’s machine with magnets, the one he tried to make before AI drove him bonkers.

I have mentioned it before, but I don't remember if I've mentioned it on this forum. You might have seen me mention this on the old forum.

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s a version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics; you would be spontaneously heating an object with a cooler object. i.e. focusing sunlight will never get you above ~6000K

What I find remarkable about this principle is that it's not really about anything "thermodynamic", but rather it's about the geometry of mirrors and lenses. At the time I first considered this, I realised that to capture the entire output from a source, only a prolate spheroid with the source at one focus would focus the image of the source onto the other focus, in which case the image is the same size as the source.

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

That's why I'm a member; you can gain valuable insight even from an otherwise worthless thread.

Ditto.

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

That's why I'm a member; you can gain valuable insight even from an otherwise worthless thread.

Worthless? Now, now, perhaps it runs on zero point energy. Why let a basic QM violation stop us from releasing some ZPE? 😜

Hello , thisnis the detailed proof of my tech :

a carriage will be lifted up carries a coil with 63 turns , it weighs 63 kg to 6.3 m height , then will be sent down an incline of 630 m , passing under magnets along the way , by speed of 6.3 m/s and generate energy by induction , for 100 sec , and generate 15.4 kw ,after path is finished it will be lifted to an opposite incline and generate energy again , it will do this for good , and full way will generate 23.8 giga wat by cost of 6.3 M $ , proof :

energy required is 2800 wat in 1 sec to lift 63 kg weight to 6.3 m .

energy generated :

v = dB/dt × N × A

N = 63 turns

r = 28 cm radius of turns

carriage speed 6.3 m/s

B = 1.26

Then, using the above equation, v is about 238 V

If the current was 63, then the power is

p = IV

p is about 15.4 kW from each coil.

, for 1260 coils in the way , 63 lines on every incline and 2 inclines by multipkying all tjose energy is 23.8 giga wat at speed of 63 m/s .

154000 watt in 10 seconds " at 63 m/s " generated power from each coil , required power is 2800 wat for 1 second , therefore energy at output is larger than energy at input , then this machine will perpetually move and generate energy for good .

this is an amplifier of energy the firat amplifier in earth of energy as abundant energy practical amplifier , for speeds increasing energy will increase due to dB/dt increasing in above equation :

v=NAdB/dt ,

for 6.3 m/s v is 238 v , at 63 m/s v will be 2380 v , for 630 m/s v is 23.8 kv ...

weight of coil for 28 cm diameter is less than a kilogram per turn awg 10 wire 63 amps ...

cost is less than 1.54 M$ with additional cost for cinstructions dont reach 6.3 M $ if each kg of copper wire is 10 $ .

this tech can end global warming in 63 days in an affordable cost .

i think it is a detailed proof .

deferent designs are using higher heights and konger ways like 63 m height and 6.3 km length and exploites higher speeds and longer supply lines .

theoretically height approaches zero and incline length approaches inf but in life it wont move unless you give it friction or factors makes it possible , in my opinion i will use a train floats on a magnetic field and use a vacum path sothat i cancel air friction then i can use less than 6.3 meters and move in higher than 63 m/s but a very accurate system is required with a very advanced control system .

see details in file bellow

contact : newman orion facebook and same for youtube see videos and posts explains better details with images and videos , i simulated that .

169.txt

36 minutes ago, Actom.growth said:

Hello , thisnis the detailed proof of my tech :

a carriage will be lifted up carries a coil with 63 turns , it weighs 63 kg to 6.3 m height , then will be sent down an incline of 630 m , passing under magnets along the way , by speed of 6.3 m/s and generate energy by induction , for 100 sec , and generate 15.4 kw ,after path is finished it will be lifted to an opposite incline and generate energy again , it will do this for good , and full way will generate 23.8 giga wat by cost of 6.3 M $ , proof :

energy required is 2800 wat in 1 sec to lift 63 kg weight to 6.3 m .

energy generated :

v = dB/dt × N × A

N = 63 turns

r = 28 cm radius of turns

carriage speed 6.3 m/s

B = 1.26

Then, using the above equation, v is about 238 V

If the current was 63, then the power is

p = IV

p is about 15.4 kW from each coil.

, for 1260 coils in the way , 63 lines on every incline and 2 inclines by multipkying all tjose energy is 23.8 giga wat at speed of 63 m/s .

154000 watt in 10 seconds " at 63 m/s " generated power from each coil , required power is 2800 wat for 1 second , therefore energy at output is larger than energy at input , then this machine will perpetually move and generate energy for good .

this is an amplifier of energy the firat amplifier in earth of energy as abundant energy practical amplifier , for speeds increasing energy will increase due to dB/dt increasing in above equation :

v=NAdB/dt ,

for 6.3 m/s v is 238 v , at 63 m/s v will be 2380 v , for 630 m/s v is 23.8 kv ...

weight of coil for 28 cm diameter is less than a kilogram per turn awg 10 wire 63 amps ...

cost is less than 1.54 M$ with additional cost for cinstructions dont reach 6.3 M $ if each kg of copper wire is 10 $ .

this tech can end global warming in 63 days in an affordable cost .

i think it is a detailed proof .

deferent designs are using higher heights and konger ways like 63 m height and 6.3 km length and exploites higher speeds and longer supply lines .

theoretically height approaches zero and incline length approaches inf but in life it wont move unless you give it friction or factors makes it possible , in my opinion i will use a train floats on a magnetic field and use a vacum path sothat i cancel air friction then i can use less than 6.3 meters and move in higher than 63 m/s but a very accurate system is required with a very advanced control system .

see details in file bellow

contact : newman orion facebook and same for youtube see videos and posts explains better details with images and videos , i simulated that .

I’m not opening that file. You need to present its contents here.

Edited Saturday at 07:30 PM3 days by exchemist

ok nothing in the file not remarked here but if you like furyher reading then it will satisfy you or you like seeing the videos there is a link for the channel ... thank you

6 hours ago, KJW said:

What I find remarkable about this principle is that it's not really about anything "thermodynamic", but rather it's about the geometry of mirrors and lenses. At the time I first considered this, I realised that to capture the entire output from a source, only a prolate spheroid with the source at one focus would focus the image of the source onto the other focus, in which case the image is the same size as the source.

I recall seeing that form of the argument as well; probably somewhere here (though with the way archiving limits things now I don’t know if a search would find it). It was likely offered up because someone rejected merely citing the 2nd law.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It was likely offered up because someone rejected merely citing the 2nd law.

I probably brought it up to illustrate how far-reaching the 2nd law of thermodynamics is. When it came to choosing between a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and a principle that I was unaware of but seemed necessary to prevent the violation of the 2nd law, I chose the principle that prevented the violation of the 2nd law.

Sometimes we don't need to run the numbers to have high confidence that something doesn't add up. Where is the extra energy coming from? Error seems much more likely than conservation of energy being wrong and you solving our energy/emissions/climate dilemma with your insights.

When you have a working prototype and it does what you think it will and that is independently confirmed... you should submit the results to the leading physics journals. I'll look forward to the news about your Nobel Prize.

There are attempts to use generators on rails as energy storage but the engineers correctly assume the energy going in will equal all the energy going out, which must include losses from inefficiencies. Which appear to be greater for this than we get using battery storage.

Moderator Note

Duplicate threads merged.

5 hours ago, Actom.growth said:

Hello , thisnis the detailed proof of my tech :

Also, decide which of these accounts you want to keep. We don't allow sockpuppets.

ok i may go back to my old account , thank youn.

i didnt break rules of thermodynamics or conservation law , energy used was 2800 wat in 1 sec and energy supposed to be generated from carriage was 2800/time of trip in free fall , in wat across 630 m , and therefore i didnt break the law , because sum of energy across time dow equal energy going up but i accelerated the carriage and it doesnt change any thing , same for speed if we dropped the carriage from 6.3 m it wit will reach ground witg same speed if we let it move down the 630 m when it reaches ground , thats mere : energy going up = energy going down , the energy i made was from induction thats independent of the carriage and its energy ,

read the proof and make a full image , second thing :

i consumed 2800 wat to raise carrisge 6.3 m in 1 sec , you can check online for energy calculator or solve it .

i generated 154 kw for 10 sec as shown

i spent 2.8 kw going up opposote way thrn generated 154 kw then kept doing this for good .

this is peroetual ,

im going on with this account

i didnt take energy from carriage , if i do carriage will stop , energy will come from induction , 154 kw from induction in a time carriage energy is still nothing taken from it , no law was violated .

what happens there :

the story is we used a ball for example it weighs 63 kilo gram we raised it up 6.3 m then we let it roll down the incline of 630 m then it did and reached ground , but we used a magnetic ball that generates energy while passing the way , therefore the carriage generates energy by induction not by motion , motion energy belongs to the carriage not to us if we take it our carriage wont move .

for energy conservation laws :

kinetic energy used to lift carriage in 1 second to 6.3 m equal to the kinetic energy came from its free fall in about 530 seconds across 630 m .

sincse we cant edit our posts i hope i post a detailed post in the news and you dont merge it sothat people dont eesponde to the incomplete post , thank you .

19 hours ago, exchemist said:

This rings a bell. I think you may have mentioned it before. Maybe it was in the context of @Prajna ’s machine with magnets, the one he tried to make before AI drove him bonkers.

Did I report back on results? As usual with magnets it looked very promising until the inevitable cogging. There is a point in the cycle where the attraction and repulsion balanced - as I'm sure you eggheads could have told me if you had not been so dismissive because you already 'knew' without even considering the actual workings of the machine.

I would have posted pics of the final iteration but all the prototypes were destroyed in the wildfires here in August, when my caravan and toolsheds were consumed by the fires.

🌿🙏❤️

2 hours ago, Prajna said:

as I'm sure you eggheads could have told me if you had not been so dismissive because you already 'knew' without even considering the actual workings of the machine.

The fact that it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics is independent of the actual mechanism. It’s not an issue of being dismissive when there’s no reason to accept the premise that it could work. But I recall there being discussion of the mechanism, which you insisted would work, and were dismissive of any objections.

4 hours ago, Prajna said:

Did I report back on results? As usual with magnets it looked very promising until the inevitable cogging. There is a point in the cycle where the attraction and repulsion balanced - as I'm sure you eggheads could have told me if you had not been so dismissive because you already 'knew' without even considering the actual workings of the machine.

I would have posted pics of the final iteration but all the prototypes were destroyed in the wildfires here in August, when my caravan and toolsheds were consumed by the fires.

🌿🙏❤️

Actually, I and others went to considerable lengths to identify exactly where, in the operating cycle of that machine, the balancing input work was required , even though we also told you that we knew in advance, just from the laws of thermodynamics, it would not produce any net energy gain.

And of course we were right.

Edited Sunday at 02:46 PM2 days by exchemist

Pity you didn't answer my question so here is another one now that you have post 1/4 of a description.

It is ironic that this claim involves, at least in part, Joule's original lead shot experiment with energy.

Anyway

20 hours ago, Actom.growth said:

then will be sent down an incline of 630 m

Is your machine totally silent ?

Nothing falls without making some noise and, as Joule found out, without generating some heat.