Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use. So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.
Should be reasonably easy to settle the issue. Who's going to build the thing and put it to the test?
disturbing thought!
What if Paul makes one that works, and Bill makes one that doesn't?
I guess that gives Orac the chance to say that according to QM, it's all down to the observer/creator.
Then once again I will have to see it torn down in a public forum and checked carefully to find the gimmick that appears to make Paul's work.
Oh, and in Paul's rambling reply I still didn't see him provide a source for the force that is supposed to make the wheel turn. The only thing remotely like such a force is a vague reference to centrifugal force, which only applies inside a rotating frame of reference. In the part of the video that shows it starting from rest it isn't rotating at first, and therefore centrifugal force is not a factor.
From outside the rotating frame centrifugal force is a consequence of Newton's first law, and is not a real force.
Bill Gill
Last edited by Bill; 01/13/1306:08 PM.
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
I think Bill should build it just to prove to himself and his gentle readers that he was right.
it really was the centripetal force that causes it to not work because the ball cant move inward or outward so it just says frikit i'm not moving at all, LOL
but nobody even mentioned the coriolis effect!
or the earths magnetic field!
you guys are slacking off.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
The only thing remotely like such a force is a vague reference to centrifugal force, which only applies inside a rotating frame of reference. In the part of the video that shows it starting from rest it isn't rotating at first, and therefore centrifugal force is not a factor.
From outside the rotating frame centrifugal force is a consequence of Newton's first law, and is not a real force.
Bill Gill
nope , its not centrifugal force bill.
so far we have covered eddy currents , which could in fact push the ball down providing an assist to the force of gravity.
and we've covered centripetal force and centrifugal force that have nothing to do with the wheel rotating.
if your not going to use the coriolis effect or the earths magnetic field then the only thing left is the room , what if the entire room is spinning around with the camera and the guy in the video causing the wheel to appear to turn around.
you guys.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
gravity pull ball down because magnet not hold ball.
ball push against wheel , wheel turn.
magnet pull ball back up.
If the magnet doesn't hold the ball, then how does it pull the ball back up? Also when the magnet pulls the ball up the wheel should turn in the other direction.
You seem to have a variable strength magnet. How do you do that, use and electromagnet with a variable current applied? Anyway I didn't see the ball moving up and down in the video.
See gentle readers? Paul can't even come up with an answer that is consistent within 3 lines.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
Also when the magnet pulls the ball up the wheel should turn in the other direction.
huh? why would the wheel go the other way? oh , I think I know what your trying to explain. the much heavier wheel that has momentum in a direction should be attracted by the magnet because its made of a non ferrous material that magnets do not attract. or the ball should stop the much heavier wheel that has momentum in a direction because the ball should reverse its spin direction for some reason and this reversal of ball spin direction causes the massive flywheel to stop and then spin in the opposite direction.
am I close?
Quote:
If the magnet doesn't hold the ball, then how does it pull the ball back up?
Bill , get with it man.
the ball is accelerated by the magnet , the ball then crosses over the strongest part of the fields that are attracting the ball , the ball crosses this strong field due to ball momentum then the ball is pulled back down by gravity and the magnet.
as the ball is being pulled back down by the magnet and gravity and pressurized air between the bar and the ball the ball gains momentum , most likely more than it had going up.
the ball presses downwards on the wheel as it goes up and goes down.
because the ball is spinning and placing friction on the wheel.
the friction causes the wheel to spin in a direction.
the magnet is still attracting the ball and the ball is still trying to go down even further but the constant pull of the magnet and the spin of the ball against the wheel causes the ball to roll up again.
Quote:
Anyway I didn't see the ball moving up and down in the video.
watch the video again Bill , it may be that your brain has blocked that part out to protect you from what it knows that you know is not possible because of the deeply rooted 3 commandments of newton in your science cult religion.
try looking at apx 1:30 into it.
the ball is clearly moving up and down.
unless your being pickey about it , in which case it really isn't going straight up or straight down it travel's along the arc of the wheel's tracks up and down.
from what I can see with my non science religious cult eyes the ball never stop's going up or down along the arc of the track.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Well gentle readers, I think I have sufficiently shown that Paul really doesn't have any idea how Newton's laws work. He keeps falling back on the idea that anybody who doesn't believe what he says is a liar. So I think I have done about all I can do in this thread. He is starting to thresh and I don't need to watch that.
So I will see you all in another thread.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
Lets make it simple for you Paul If the ball does'nt turn...then the wheel dos'nt turn
The only rolling or turning the ball does is......Initially its attracted (or rolls uphill towards the magnet). Once it gets as close to the magnet as it is allowed.....it stops.....and stops for good, unless the magnet is pulled away Then the ball rolls (falls) down to the bottom of the wheel. Finito...end of story, wheel does not turn.
I guess the 1/2 inch ball would have to turn at least 80+ turns for one turn of the wheel, thats very fast....How is the ball going to do that, stuck up close to the magnet??
. . "You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.
The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. However, perpetual motion usually refers to a device or system that delivers more energy than was put into it. Such a device or system would be in violation of the law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy can never be created or destroyed, and is therefore deemed impossible by the laws of physics. Our working models assist us to better explain the impossibility of Perpetual Motion. It's excellent tool to discuss first and second Laws of Thermodynamics, Hydrostatic equilibrium Law, Law of Gravity, efficiency, friction,
Explore workable models here and come back to see the Magnetic Perpetual Machine and even a guide How to build your own Overbalanced Wheel
Please, be advised:
These Videos are of motorized versions that were built to illustrate how these machines were supposed to work in the minds of Inventors.
So here is your big chance are you ready to admit you are wrong?
Last edited by Orac; 01/14/1302:21 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
How are they stupid THEY correctly told you it wouldn't work and knew it was a fake.
So either you were a stupid religious type that believes any crap be it in bible or on the net or you were trolling ... take your pick????
Either answer makes you the stupid one.
Quote:
Top 3 Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
3 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
2 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot anonymous posting of crap on the internet may be all the evidence you need to "prove" your religion.
1 - You vehmently attack others who oppose your religious views. There is no limit to the attacks to defend youe religion lies, deceit, create false witness and yet consider your religion the most "honest", "tolerant" and "loving."
Last edited by Orac; 01/14/1302:49 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
this has got to be the one that I liked most of all...
Quote:
If you do a vector analysis of the 2 primary forces you will find that they sum up to provide a force directly opposite the centripetal force and equal in magnitude. Thus the net force on the ball is zero, so there is no movement. This of course is after friction has reduced the oscillation of the ball around its final position to 0.
and as I mentioned much earlier on page 1
Quote:
I'm not claiming that it really does work.
I just thought it would make a nice conversation piece.
they really do make nice conservation pieces and they seem to be able to get peoples minds out of the fantasy realm and back into the real world , I can see how a teacher could use these as tools to present their students with problems that need to be solved.
look at the thought that was generated in this thread , albeit erroneous , thought still.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Item 2 of Top 3 Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
2 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot anonymous posting of crap on the internet may be all the evidence you need to "prove" your religion.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
I found your picture , Orac are you really a computer? that would explain why you found the reason why it wouldn't work.
it says your circuits are fried , is that true? perhaps that's why you post the things you do.
should I care what you post? let me let you in on a little secret , I dont! so post away , and have fun.
Quote:
I agree that something appears to be wrong with Orac. he really seems to think he can read the future. I wonder if the three years he has been running the Skeptics’ Circle, plus all the woo he deals with on his own blog has finally fried one (or more) of his logic circuits.
The more you post the more I realise you really were stupid enough to believe the video and are now covering it up to try and act like you were trolling.
You poor gullible person ..... makes one think about your religious beliefs really .... hmmmmmm.
Shall I troll on and show you how you really do it?
Mind you you have coped a flogging here so queue TT or FF to come to the rescue any moment.
Last edited by Orac; 01/14/1303:13 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Fine .... this is NQS so lets start shall we talk about the book your religion is trying to steal from the jews and add your own take on what it says.
I mean is your religion so poor it can't afford it's own book or did you lose it like bad children?
The islamic have the Quran The jews have the Torah The buddists have 3 the Sutra Pitaka, Vinaya Pitaka and the Abhidhamma Pitaka The later day saints have their gold tablets The modern liberal christians have the new testament
And you fundementalist christians have what rehashed and stolen pieces that makes up the old testament and you are basing a religion on it ????
Now thats how you troll.
I have no real issue with you Paul but if you want to simply post garbage and troll the forum expect to get cut up in this cross fire.
Last edited by Orac; 01/14/1303:28 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
I'm not going to say he was a wacko , but by the way you talk about religion you certainly would consider him to be a wacko.
Quote:
Newton considered himself to be one of a select group of individuals who were specially chosen by God for the task of understanding Biblical scripture.[18] He was a strong believer in prophetic interpretation of the Bible, and like many of his contemporaries in Protestant England, he developed a strong affinity and deep admiration for the teachings and works of Joseph Mede. Though he never wrote a cohesive body of work on prophecy, Newton's belief led him to write several treatises on the subject, including an unpublished guide for prophetic interpretation entitled, "Rules for interpreting the words & language in Scripture". In this manuscript he details the necessary requirements for what he considered to be the proper interpretation of the Bible.
In addition, Newton would spend much of his life seeking and revealing what could be considered a Bible Code. He placed a great deal of emphasis upon the interpretation of the Book of Revelation, writing generously upon this book and authoring several manuscripts detailing his interpretations. Unlike a prophet in the true sense of the word, Newton relied upon existing Scripture to prophesy for him, believing his interpretations would set the record straight in the face of what he considered to be "so little understood".[19] In 1754, 27 years after his death, Isaac Newton's treatise, "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" would be published, and though it does not argue any prophetic meaning, it does exemplify what Newton considered to be just one popular misunderstanding of Scripture.
Although Newton's approach to these studies could not be considered a scientific approach, he did write as if his findings were the result of evidence-based research.
I think that newton was a very smart smart person.
but your type would claim he was not , in fact you would make all types of critical judgments against him because you think your so smart , I guess your mirror tells you that.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
