Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 11:54 AM
39 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,912 Year: 8,948/19,786 Month: 1,370/2,119 Week: 130/576 Day: 31/99 Hour: 7/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
14NextFF
Author Topic:   Electro-mechanical engines of Perpetual Motion and Natural Selection
Alan Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 202 (32411)
02-17-2003 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Admin
02-16-2003 10:03 AM


The system tells me that only you can delete this message
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Admin, posted 02-16-2003 10:03 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Admin, posted 02-17-2003 7:38 AM Alan Cresswell has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12600
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 48 of 202 (32419)
02-17-2003 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Alan Cresswell
02-17-2003 4:38 AM


While only administrators and moderators can delete posts, anyone may edit their own posts. John's interpretation of your message was that it was more about your technology than the possibility of war, and in that case it should remain in this forum. But if not then it would be appropriate to use the edit function to replace the contents with a short note such as, "Moved to the such-and-so thread of the Coffee House forum", then repost it there.

------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Alan Cresswell, posted 02-17-2003 4:38 AM Alan Cresswell has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Alan Cresswell, posted 02-17-2003 8:18 AM Admin has not yet responded

    
Alan Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 202 (32421)
02-17-2003 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Admin
02-17-2003 7:38 AM


Okay, Thank you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Admin, posted 02-17-2003 7:38 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
Alan Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 202 (53172)
09-01-2003 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Cresswell
02-07-2003 2:13 PM


I would like to return to this thread because there are two new developments. The first is new diagram 9-1 at www.thewebspert.com/cresswell/. Inarguable proof that the first law of thermodynamics and the Conservation of Energy is not recognised by Nature.

A design drawing, costs and component specifications are available for a tried and tested PM power torque drive. When it is giffed it will head the site.

There are no charges or costs. No rip off. I will e-mail an attachment. Just ask.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dr Cresswell, posted 02-07-2003 2:13 PM Dr Cresswell has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Brad McFall, posted 09-01-2003 8:32 AM Alan Cresswell has responded
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 09-01-2003 8:48 AM Alan Cresswell has responded
 Message 62 by Dr Cresswell, posted 09-01-2003 2:39 PM Alan Cresswell has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3196 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 51 of 202 (53179)
09-01-2003 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Alan Cresswell
09-01-2003 6:57 AM


When you write "inarguable" do you mean only statistical between 1st and 2nd (law(s)) aka extinction? If this is affirmative then there is still some question in my mind. If you dont understand the question I dont know how long it will take me to rephrase it so that first you answer a yes or no on this. Best Brad.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Alan Cresswell, posted 09-01-2003 6:57 AM Alan Cresswell has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Alan Cresswell, posted 09-01-2003 10:26 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18481
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 52 of 202 (53181)
09-01-2003 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Alan Cresswell
09-01-2003 6:57 AM


Hi, Alan Cresswell. Welcome back!

There are a few questions still left open from your last visit in February. Perhaps you could respond to these before discussing your new information. Some open questions revealed by a quick perusal:

  • How can you equate heat with energy? (Dr. Cresswell)
  • How do you get units of velocity from the RMS of a wave? (me)
  • Aren't you confusing Newtonian mechanics with quantum mechanics? (Dr. Cresswell)
  • Why are you here? Why aren't you instead building a demonstration unit, gathering investors, and making billions? (everyone)

If I could be forgiven for slipping briefly into admin mode, when I reviewed this thread I was dismayed at some of the conduct. Please, everyone, follow the Forum Guidelines, particularly rule 3:

  1. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

Comments of a personal nature would seem unnecessary in a discussion of perpetual motion machines. I won't single anyone out at this time (the downside of this lack of specificity is that it always draws emails from people saying it couldn't possibly have been them), but hopefully you can figure out who you are so you can avoid a suspension/reinstatement cycle. I'm issuing this warning up front because I'm going to be pretty quick on the trigger.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Alan Cresswell, posted 09-01-2003 6:57 AM Alan Cresswell has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Alan Cresswell, posted 09-01-2003 11:00 AM Percy has responded

    
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2223 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 53 of 202 (53183)
09-01-2003 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Admin
02-05-2003 1:43 PM


As incredible as it might seem, there is more than one Alan Cresswell, and he has registered here as Dr. Cresswell.

That's great to hear. I'd always like Dr. Cresswell's posts, and I was wondering if he'd gone mad.

If you end up giving the name "Alan Cresswell" to Dr. Alan Cresswell, please let us know, so we can note that. Not that it won't be obvious by the posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Admin, posted 02-05-2003 1:43 PM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 09-01-2003 10:18 AM truthlover has not yet responded
 Message 60 by Dr Cresswell, posted 09-01-2003 2:35 PM truthlover has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 54 of 202 (53202)
09-01-2003 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by truthlover
09-01-2003 9:04 AM


quote:
I'd always like Dr. Cresswell's posts, and I was wondering if he'd gone mad.

LOL!!

I had the same experience just moments ago!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by truthlover, posted 09-01-2003 9:04 AM truthlover has not yet responded

    
Alan Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 202 (53205)
09-01-2003 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Brad McFall
09-01-2003 8:32 AM


When I use the word 'inarguable', I mean that the application of common sense will destroy all unprovable laws of faith and all such laws are unprovable. That is why they are called 'laws'.

There is of course an essential minimum value to 'common sense' that is essential for intelligent discussion on this subject and that begins at the ability to scientifically debate Dioagram 2. Since February this forum has had zero to say on this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Brad McFall, posted 09-01-2003 8:32 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Brad McFall, posted 09-01-2003 11:50 AM Alan Cresswell has not yet responded

  
Alan Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 202 (53212)
09-01-2003 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
09-01-2003 8:48 AM


ENERGY is spinning mass and HEAT the power required to SPIN IT UP.
The SPINNING DOWN of this entity is Power (HEAT) output. Power needed to spin up is always lower than the Downspin collapse. Elementary friction flywheel torque loss.

The maximum value of a perfect sine wave is ALWAYS root2 x the mean effective. 3 x 10^8 m/s is RMS.

Newton no longer confuses me. He is wrong about everything and Aristotle aced him 2000 years earlier with P=mv. Beautiful.
I settled for the word Quantum because Diagram 2 reciprocated and gave the infamous FREE LUNCH. I also now find continuous turbine equivalent cycles so call it what you will. A name does not effect the facts.

MONEY> HA! Never liked the stuff. Never met a happy rich person that could think beyond his wallet. I am 65 and disabled. Howard Hughes may be a role model for your 'everyone'. Their problem, not mine.

Comments please on how I get the loony antigravity Helium temperature at the end of the text. This is really cooking with gas. Impress me.

[This message has been edited by Alan Cresswell, 09-01-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 09-01-2003 8:48 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Brad McFall, posted 09-01-2003 11:44 AM Alan Cresswell has not yet responded
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 09-01-2003 12:57 PM Alan Cresswell has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3196 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 57 of 202 (53220)
09-01-2003 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Alan Cresswell
09-01-2003 11:00 AM


I am not so sure you have obviated the FIGURE in the newton Bucket expt. as to absolute and relative force IN THE BIOLOGY at least in the soma of the experimentor even in outerspace. That is why I asked relative to extinction. In the "Triple Helix", Lewontin reveals awares or unawares that elite discussion of Rene Thom's catastrophe theory was geared if not garnered to biological extinction and yet I have not seen or heard the application while I considered your work possible it is still extraordinary for me as long as you do not involve mendelisM directly (by implication at most (or least for me)) which would remand more than a thought on exticntion or again I ask, "What does your reply have to do/replay with exitiction?" as I originally asked, for I can easier read the BIBLE; AND GET MORE OUT OF IT. That is not to say you are not thinking correctly I just can not judge at this "spin." Please use yOUR word "extinction" explictly in a next else I abort with no little harm done by law.

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-01-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Alan Cresswell, posted 09-01-2003 11:00 AM Alan Cresswell has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3196 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 58 of 202 (53222)
09-01-2003 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Alan Cresswell
09-01-2003 10:26 AM


Sorry, I did not see the 2nd post but still will "debating" the diagram yet remand issues of extinction? That is what I am asking.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Alan Cresswell, posted 09-01-2003 10:26 AM Alan Cresswell has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18481
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 59 of 202 (53227)
09-01-2003 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Alan Cresswell
09-01-2003 11:00 AM


Hi Alan Cresswell,

Alan Cresswell writes:

ENERGY is spinning mass and HEAT the power required to SPIN IT UP. The SPINNING DOWN of this entity is Power (HEAT) output.

I think you've got a units problem. Energy and heat are essentially the same thing, usually measured in ergs or BTUS or calories or joules (newton-meters). Power, on the other hand, is energy per unit time. Since energy is, for example, newton-meters while power is newton-meters/time, you cannot directly equate the two.

Back in Message 35 you said:

Velocity of light C is the RMS value of a wave.

And now you provide a little more information:

The maximum value of a perfect sine wave is ALWAYS root2 x the mean effective. 3 x 10^8 m/s is RMS.

Sine waves are not measured in m/s, so the RMS of a sine wave does not yield units of m/s. Sine waves have frequency, measured in cycles/sec, and wavelength, measured in meters/cycle, and we know this equation holds:

ƒ λ = c

But I can't tell what point you're trying to make, and you appear to have another units problem.

MONEY> HA! Never liked the stuff. Never met a happy rich person that could think beyond his wallet. I am 65 and disabled. Howard Hughes may be a role model for your 'everyone'. Their problem, not mine.

Ignore the money part of the question. Have you built a demonstration device? If not, why not?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Alan Cresswell, posted 09-01-2003 11:00 AM Alan Cresswell has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Alan Cresswell, posted 09-01-2003 2:39 PM Percy has responded

    
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 202 (53247)
09-01-2003 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by truthlover
09-01-2003 9:04 AM


Don't worry, with a doctorate in nuclear physics I may sometimes assume a mad scientist persona, but I haven't completely lost it.

The biggest problem I see with either trying to understand the website or discuss it is that the person who shares my name seems to be using words which have well defined meanings (such as heat, energy and power) but with a different meaning attached to them. This actually makes following whatever logic that is in the website almost impossible ... and we're left simply with statements backed up by incomprehensible reasoning that say that fundamental laws of physics are incorrect. These laws were formulated by men far more intelligent than I, based on extensive experimental data, verified by yet more experiments, never been found to fail experimental tests, and have been used in formulating many other laws and theories that are equally successful in explaining a vast range of experimental observations. Considering the success of the laws he wishes to overturn and the totally obscurity in his reasoning it is no wonder that he isn't being taken seriously.

Alan


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by truthlover, posted 09-01-2003 9:04 AM truthlover has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Alan Cresswell, posted 09-01-2003 2:45 PM Dr Cresswell has not yet responded

  
Alan Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 202 (53248)
09-01-2003 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Percy
09-01-2003 12:57 PM


No. Energy of spinning flywheel = Mv^2 and WAtts not Nm.

No again and that is why I took the time to put in Diagram 9-1.

The rms velocity of a sine wave is 2Pikf/2 where k is the wavelength.

Yes I have an inertia drive working and e-mailed it to you this morning. Have the 9-1 water fountain working too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 09-01-2003 12:57 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 09-01-2003 6:56 PM Alan Cresswell has responded

  
Prev123
4
56
...
14NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019