Electro-mechanical engines of Perpetual Motion and Natural Selection

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

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

OK, I failed to comprehend a thing you just wrote. But I don't see an answer to my question.How do you get from to?Alan

So I guess my question (along with the outstanding questions of others) will remain unanswered ... which leaves me with the impression it's unanswerable. Well, I'm not going to die for lack of the answer.Alan

Woo hoo! He's back, the Doppelganger not to be messed with. Nice little ad-hominem there, shame it does nothing to solve the problem of the totally non-sensical "physics" that pervades your web page almost from the first line.Oh yes, that's right. If you actually got your units and concepts right your whole system would collapse to an impossibility. Real shame that. Alan Cresswell ... that's the one who lives off the tax payer doing real science not the crank.

Tell you what.You answer the question I asked just before you decided to leave us back in September, namely ..

quote:

---

How do you get from

VI in = VI out + Eddy Current heat to cooling oil

to

ZERO = I2R Eddy current heat = conceivably EVERYTHING = -Mc2 fission

?

---

and, then I might take the time to look at Figure 6-1. Assuming your answer makes any sense at all. I see no point wasting what little free time I currently have looking at a point half way down your page when the preceding points remain as apparently nothing more than random words and symbols assembled on a page.Alan

quote:

---

Einstein won his Nobel Prize in this field but he was too busy being a genius to look at it.

---

Now I'm even more confused. How does the photoelectric effect and the quantization of light (which Einstein got his Nobel Prize for) fit into the same field as electromagnetic induction?

quote:

---

My transformer is sensibly designed, unlaminated and oil cooled to make it 99% plus efficient. This gives the world an energy and heat balance contrary to; the conservation of energy, Newton and the thermodynamic laws.

---

Well, if you claimed it was over 100% efficient then I suppose there would be quite profound implications for thermodynamic laws (including conservation of energy).

I'm not disputing that. I'm treating this more or less as a test of the monkeys writing Shakespeare thing ... how many posts does it take until he posts something that makes sense?I don't spend much time here, real life and another forum make that impossible, but I do find he amuses me. And, since he had the gall to have the same name as me I take it personally. Do you know I get emails from people thinking I'm him? You don't need to be Einstein to figure out what they say.Alan

quote:

---

I find you evasive

---

Well, I think if you answer the questions that have been posed for you first then you may consider calling others evasive. And, in English please. Simply, clearly, without all your strange allusions to irrelevancies. Preferably backed up by maths that is recognisable as maths. Oh, and while you're at it using conventional meanings for words like "energy" and "power".

quote:

---

shallow and ignorant

---

Hmm, who around here knows no more physics than a couple of buzz-words and names of physicists? Who hasn't bothered to engage in discussions elsewhere on this forum? (OK, I admit it's been a few months since I posted here)

quote:

---

utterly incapable of indepedent and original thinking

---

Well, the examiners of my PhD thesis thought I did OK in that regard. And the referees of several research papers. In science original work is done by building on the work of others, "standing on the shoulders of giants" as some have said, not throwing out what is currently known on a whim. Or do you mean "independant and original" to be the kind of thoughts produced by indulgance in hallucinogenic substances?I'm wondering just which Alan Cresswell these comments refer too ... anyone else wish to comment who they fit best?

Remember, if you play around with numbers and symbols enough you can "prove" anything. All very clever, but unless you are rigourous in applying formal logic and mathematical convention there is no way any such "maths" will ever be taken seriously.Get your maths right and your argument is irrefutable. Start by assuming 1=2 (or some equal mathematical stupidity) and it'll be treated as nothing more than a joke.

Well, fluid mechanics isn't my strong point but a quick Google is very informative. Within Bernoulli's theorem, the quantity H (incidentally, dimensions of energy per unit mass ... it's not clear at all on your page what you're using H for as nothing is clearly laid out with relevant dimensions) is assumed constant. So then using that to try to determine changes in H does seem a bit odd, to say the least.

quote:

---

The luvvies you call peers weighed your papers. They did not read beyond page one.

---

Well, judging by the fact that I've yet to receive a referees report that hasn't commented on things throughout the paper, I assume they did read the whole thing. On the otherhand, if anything you've submitted for publication is like your webpage I doubt anyone could manage to supress their hysterics to get beyond the first paragraph.

quote:

---

Why is the world not reeling from your findings?

---

Probably because I'm no more than a small cog in the big wheel that is good science. I've collected and reported a lot of data, maybe someday someone else will be able to use some of that data in formulating an earth shattering theory. I doubt it, but you never know.I do know that as you show no evidence of either learning from, or contibuting to, the work of others you will always be just some nutter out there having no impact on the world of science apart from as some toy for people to play with. "Hey, want a good laugh? Look at this lunatic ... wants to tell us we're wrong and can't even tell the difference between force and energy"

I'm me, he's him ... I thinkYes, we are different people who just happen to have the same name. I'm legit, he's a loon.And, don't worry about the maths ... it's total nonsense. A bit like trying to understand a sentance in English but written according to the rules of Chinese grammar. Except it's worse than that.

Good luck. I asked the same question, in almost identical form, back in September and still haven't got a reply.

quote:

---

(Cresswell work) + (Cresswell physics acumen) + (Cresswell logic) = 0

---

Making sure you have the right Cresswell, otherwise I may take it personally.

The correct course of action would surely be to contact a lawyer.This would demonstrate that although getting power from nothing is a load of bullshit, lawyers are more than capable of earning money from same.