Electro-mechanical engines of Perpetual Motion and Natural Selection

Note to all:This thread's purpose is not to make fun of someone who believes in perpetual motion machines. Please cease these types of posts.Please only post messages that address Alan Cresswell's ideas about perpetual motion. If you are seeking flaws, seek them in his ideas, not in his person.Note to Alan Cresswell:It appears to me that your ideas about perpetual motion are secondary to your desire to mix it up on a discussion board. If your next several posts do not confine themselves strictly to discussion of your ideas then your posting privileges will be suspended. If this should occur then they can be reinstated by sending email to Admin pledging to follow the Forum Guidelines and administrator requests in the future.------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Mr.Cresswell (of the P.M.M. fame) Could you please show me your work concerning time dilation and perhaps while your at it explain the effect of gravitation upon light in the vicinity of a solar mass?

I have never had a desire to mix it with Forum boppers. Quite the contrary, Forum boppers prefer to mix it with me.Fourty years back I was apalled that the 'Carnot Efficiency' spelled an end to human endeavour and the introduction of magic entropy guaranteed that the universe was equally incapable of intelligent behaviour.I vowed one day to address these beliefs by applying 'COMMON SENSE'.It is 15 years since I busted the naive concept of Thermodynamic Law by defining events in Diagram 2 of the website.I was so appalled at the zeroid level of this particular forum that I decided to completely rewrite the site. The result is that I only get a clumsy hoof and dance act around vital issues.Draw your own conclusions from the posted comments. Is it possdible to run and hide simultaneously ? Here it seems to be the NORM for a day.

If you're waiting for replies, I think the ball might be in your court. You haven't replied to these recent messages: --Percy

Dear Mr. Cresswell,I have posted on your thread (message 80). I would still like to hear your stance on some of the points stated then:
Concerning especially (c) of message 80, I would appreciate if you could comment on (i) in which respect entropy is magic, (ii) how do you disprove the validity of the postulate of statistical physics (please name a single experimentally accessible example which contradicts it): I'm possibly repeating myself in saying that the "laws of thermodynamics" can be derived (using quite basic mathematics) from a single postulate. All you have to do is prove it wrong...
Also I would like you to clarify, if your machines are just perpetually running, or if you claim that they would produce energy in the process.
best regards [Changed "message 80" to be a url. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 09-04-2003]

Diagram 1 proves that the thermodynamic laws are wrong. If they were true it would be quite impossible to draw this diagram. This is why the forum refuses to discuss the implications. It is sad.[This message has been edited by Alan Cresswell, 09-04-2003]

Hi Alan,Since you aren't interested in money yourself, do you mind if I take your designs and apply for the US patents? And if I sent you my snailmail address, could you send me a working model?--Percy

While I generally avoid discussions with yet another in the endless stream of perpetual motion [advocates], I must admit I'm quite fond of this new mode of argument:"Proof by Drawing".

quote:

---

Diagram 1 proves that the thermodynamic laws are wrong. If they were true it would be quite impossible to draw this diagram.

---

Of course it would be possible to draw the figure. The question is, would the diagram make sense? I've yet to see anything in that figure, or the text that seems to be associated with it that is anything other than nonsense. So, for example, we have: Well, d'oh. The intention of a transformer is to convert an input voltage to a different output voltage with minimal energy loss in transmission as possible - eddy currents create heat and hence reduce transmission efficiency. You have an equation that is complete nonsense - unless you've somehow expressed voltages as heat or heat as a voltage. This is another example of your apparent total inability to use conventional definitions of terms.You then say that this nonsense "simplifies" to which also makes no sense. Where the fuck does fission come into this?I think the reason this forum (or indeed any other - I've noticed that you seem to have posted your ideas on several other forums, presumably with similar responses) doesn't discuss the implications is simple. The so-called logic you've used is so flawed that the implications are simply non-existant.Alan

Well I for one think this thread has pretty much gone its course and since my lifetime is not infinite I shall waste no more typing time.

quote:

---

The prospect of the world championship 'cutting and pasting' title is not intellectually stimulating to me. Help yourselves to it. Please do.

---

However, John's point remains.Cutting and pasting is one of the very most basic of tasks to perform on a computer.You admit that it is a mysterious puzzle to you, along with using the reply button at the bottom of the post.Despite this lack of basic computer skills, you would ask us to believe that you are an actual physics genius.Can you see how we might chuckle a bit at this?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-04-2003][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-04-2003]

quote:

---

Diagram 1 proves that the thermodynamic laws are wrong. If they were true it would be quite impossible to draw this diagram. This is why the forum refuses to discuss the implications. It is sad.

---

Again, accepting the danger of repeating myself (and being in violation of certain guidelines):
In message 80 as well as in message 96 I have asked you to clear up several issues, necessary to my understanding, before one can seriously discuss the topic in full:
(a) Are the machines you are proposing perpetually moving or are they creating energy in the process?
(b) How is entropy a magic quantity? (S=kb.ln(Omega) does not sound extremely magical to me.)
(c) How do the examples proposed by you prove the only SINGLE postulate of statistical physics wrong?As for diagram 1, which you claim proves the thermodynamic laws wrong:
I am a bit confused about your argumentation. Are you claiming that VIin=VIout for any transformer?best regards

Sorry, having just reread what I posted last night I realised I made a mistake.

quote:

---

Applying the Conservation of Energy (First law of Thermodynamics):
VI in = VI out + Eddy Current heat to cooling oil

You have an equation that is complete nonsense - unless you've somehow expressed voltages as heat or heat as a voltage. This is another example of your apparent total inability to use conventional definitions of terms.

---

Of course, you're equating electrical power (VI) not voltage with heat ... which is, of course, the same heat=power problem you've expressed elsewhere on your site and this thread. If by "Eddy Current heat" you mean rate of transfer of heat to the cooling oil (integrated over a sufficient time period to allow equilibrium between the core and the oil) then, yes, this is OK except for your idiosyncratic use of the word "heat".I stand by the rest of my post. I'd be particularly interested in how you get from the above to your "simplified" equation. Do you remember maths exams at school - always show your working out, you can get marks for what's correct there even if you make a mistake and end up with an incorrect answer, if you give just a wrong answer you score nothing.Alan

The only electrical losses in a transformer circuit are I^2R copper losses. It therefore follows that eddy current heat is a FREE LUNCH gain. Elementary.The reason why the iron core refuses to evaporate to eventual zero mass is an EQUAL AND OPPOSITE MC^2 FUSION event.Plus and minus MC^2 is light that attends all mass and is the tool that maintains its equilibrium. A nuclear warhead can be made from a kilogram of chicken feathers if the witlessness of man could come up with a detonator.A black hole is the up limit of this event. It bursts its poles and goes into a continuous fizzle. Round and round a galaxy and back to begin again. You are in there somewhere.I believe 'quasars' are embryo galaxies and it is why they show a blue light 'growing' shift.[This message has been edited by Alan Cresswell, 09-05-2003]

I'm getting a "Brad McFall" vibe here, only without the Cantor. Could these two share the same outlook/state-of-mind?