insane_alien

a current carrying wire in a magnetic field will move perpendicularly to both the magnetic field and the electrical current.

those are pure stirling engines. and they have almost nothing to do with the proposed 'engine' in the website. they all require heat transfer to an external dump. such as the atmosphere or the icecube. these are the heat dumps. the cold bit in the 'kender engine' is not a heat dump as the gas needs to expand adiabatically to get so cold and then be compressed again with some cooling to perform as they are suggesting. read this thread again, the failings of it are well documented and all this will work as is a very inefficient pneumatic transmission between the compressor and the alternator.

you don't always think its real. i often realise i'm dreaming.

notice how a wire looks similar to half of the magnet if you split it down the middle vertically. where you end up with a chunk of the north pole and the south pole? so even by your own logic a wire cannot be a monopole.

this is the exact opposite of what i said yes, some calculations would be nice. but i'll keep it simple for you. And to reiterate on this fictional 60K heat dump, it doesn't exist. absolutely no heat is dumped there as it is an internal part of the system. if you wanted to have this thing work as a heat pump(which it isn't meant to be doing anyway) you would have a big beefy heat exchanger in there to draw heat out of what ever it is you want to cool. and you certainly don't put energy in the hot end. also you'd take that generator out as its only going to mess up your heat pump. what this thing is trying to do (and i shouldn't have to explain this at this stage in the thread) is not the function of a heat pump but a heat engine. what happens is that you put energy in it causes circulation in the system(you certainly don't drive it round with a compressor as that defeats the entire purpose of the system) and there is a cold end that dumps heat to the enviroment(which means stuff outside the system, not inside) so unless this thing is working in a 60K atmosphere, the temperature dump is NOT 60K its whatever temperature the room is. and i don't care how cold it gets internally and neither does thermodynamics.

it would cool down due to radiation. hot things glow (you can see this with really hot things that are red or even white hot) although not usually in the visible spectrum. you yourself are glowing a good shade of infrared right now. this will take thermal energy out of your block of aluminium. in your scenario you would also have to consider radiative heating from incoming light. mainly from the sun but the earth and moon are also significant players particularly if you are on the nightside of earth.

actually, its harder to go down than up. this is why we got good at making really hot things faster than really cold things. your sink is not at 60K because there is no heat transfer there. you're just giving your compressor more work to do.

i do know how heat pumps work, and i should do. i've designed a couple. its complete crap for reasons already described in this thread. it would require thermodynamics to be thrown out of the window for it to work as claimed.

we know what heat pumps are and how they work. just that the kender one is utter crap not only at pumping heat but its not trying to function as a heat pump but a way of generating electricity. the stuff proposed on the website is rubbish.

but you need a place to dump that heat that is colder than the atmosphere. without a refridgeration cycle you aren't going to get that.

electrolysis is crap is where the flaw is. lets say you need a 5 kW heater to heat a home(a small well insulated home but we just need a figure here). now, with an electrical heating system, you need 5kW of power to be supplied to your heating system in order for it to work. in order to do the same amount of heating with electrolysis of water then burning the resulting hydrogen then you'd need a LOT more. its going to be somewhere up around 50kW to heat the exact same small house. let me explain why it is this high(again). 1/ Electrolysis is inefficient. At best with electrolysis you can get out what you put in. but its not so simple in reality. the solution you are electrolysing has a very high resistance and a lot of energy will be lost here and i mean a LOT. you'll maybe get about 30% of the theoretical output of hydrogen if you're doing it really efficiently. 2/ burning stuff for heat is inefficient. this is down to the thermal efficiency. you're only going to be able to extract a limited amount of the energy given off by burning the hydrogen. for a hydrogen flame it is possible under ideal conditions to get this to 91% but would require you very unlikely conditions its more likely to be in the range of 70-80% maximum. these losses are going to suck up energy like nothing else. if only there was some way you could get rid of them, say, by removing the electrolysis stage all together? yep. thats right. get yourself an electric heater and 99.9% of the energy you pump in will pop out as heat. electrical heaters are startlingly efficient at their jobs.

you don't HAVE to go to MIT to get a good education. there are plenty of very good universities out there.

not really sure what it's supposed to do...

your 'M particle' has never been seen or found yet you talk of it as being real. don't be so hypocrtical. also, we do have imagination but for things to be accepted into science it needs to be consistent and coherent. there are rules and steps to follow to ensure that whatever gets in is actually a good description of reality and removes the human aspects of it like gut feelings and biases. this ensures what we have is the real truth and not something just made up. your idea does not pass this step.

C,D and E are observable as they are within the light cone. B and F are on the very edge of observability.

oh well, everyone has their preferences.

The electron has got a force applied to it, electrostatic attraction between the electrons and the protons. not that electrons orbit the nucleus in the classical sense anyway. things get complicated down there. the fact that you seem totally unaware of this begs the question, how much education in physics do you have? because that's taught wuite early on in high school. as to the 'fancy made up names' well, we need to call phenomenon something. and most of them had never been seen before so of course we had to make up names for them. it would be inefficient and impractical to have to give a full description of a phenomenon or particle every time we mentioned it. we don't reffer to tables as 'wooden objects with a flat top surface and one supporting legs to bring it to a desired height' we call them tables. also, you have to show where current theories go wrong before they can be replaced otherwise, is your idea any better. i suggest you go read up on the scientific method and what science actually is before you continue. then go read some of the basic materials(wikipedia will do) on quantum mechanics.

what the hell is a 'reverse gravimetric field' the article you linked to is about gravitomagnetism, a predicted effect of general relativity. you won't be able to measure anything as the effect is absolutely tiny and its only recently we've been able to achieve the accuracy needed to put it to the test. it will not result in an antigravity device if thats what you're thinking.

so why don't we see the force of gravity diminishing with time as these particles were absorbed. we have values for G extending back billions of years (thanks to big ass telescopes and the finite speed of light). woah, where did this come from? you better have some very good reasons for this along with some data. so now these particles are responsible for ALL motion? really? even to the point where we ignore the other forces? surely if i fire a rocket and lift off from the earth i am going to be moving against these particles as i am escaping the earths gravity(and that after all is what you said these particles caused) and if we stick some propellers onto that to make a blimb we measure the speed to be non-zero and we get some drag. which is what i was talking about. yes it can, we have probes outside the solar system, we can look at other solar systems, we can look at whole other galaxies too. anyway, if it is impossible to observe the effects of something, then what is the point of it? it gets cut by occams razor. why? elegant does not mean right. you will need to provide far more than this to get anywhere. so far you have provided NOTHING for us to work with other than a very vague description. you need to be specific, you need to provide ways for it to be tested, you need some mathematics to make precise predictions and then some. you also haven't answered my questions about how these particles interact and you have already shown that you are quite unfamiliar with both the quantum world and the relativistic world. this raises quite a bit of concerns about what you are saying and they are justified. you need to start backing upwhat you're saying especially before you go and add more bits to it.

its an urban legend. but that doesn't stop many many people believing in it

the numbering is abstract, you could have time as the first dimension. besides, he didn't say the dimension was the fourth. he just say a 4D sphere which means a sphere with 4 spatial dimensions. also, the 11-D from string theory is nowhere near a certainty and there are plenty of other theories.

this just brings up the gravity shielding problem again. all current data indicates that you cannot shield against gravity at all. using a particle pressure model for gravity then gravitational shielding should be very possible. also, there would be limits upon the maximum strength of gravity. this has not been observed either. the thing as a whole is false. it is not the mechanism for gravity. certain aspects of it however can apply to other fields however and it is this that is being re-examined. the problem is with the basic idea as well. also, you haven't proposed how this particle is supposed to interact with the atom. what force does it use? we have already given you reasons why it cannot be electromagnetic interaction, strong interaction or weak interaction. and if it is a gravitational interaction then you need to introduce yet another particle that carries this meta gravitational force to allow them to interact. you also haven't stipulated a source for these particles, where do they come from? why don't we see gravity varying with time? why is ther no drag effect if you are moving relative to this field of particles? etc. etc. this idea has so many holes it makes a seive look like a good water container.

i was all over the shot when i was younger, everything from archaologist to spaceman, eventually settled down on pilot then at the last minute (almost literally, an hour at any rate) BAM! chemical engineer. not that being a businessman(what a broad broad category that is) prevents you from being an amateur/hobby physicist. thanks to the internet there are plenty of ways to learn in your spare time if you want them.

ajb, try openoffice impress, you can export it as a powerpoint file and its a bit easier to use (IMO) to powerpoint. and it has some nice equation editing tools.

a slightly more complicated one is to take a rod, dunk it in the fluid and see what rotational velocity you can get out of it for a given torque