Curious device

[Prajna]

54 minutes ago, exchemist said:

not wanting to engage a person they may have decided is a crank

And that's not arrogant, @exchemist? It's certainly not friendly or helpful. I engage on a number of forums and they are generally friendly. Posting on this topic on an engineering forum I have come in for a certain amount of gentle ribbing and one or two who were less polite and seem to share your convictions, but there have also been many helpful and supportive responses. You are one of the few people on this forum who has offered helpful insights, thank you for that.

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

Indeed, since nobody has ever demonstrated one, one could easily argue the arrogance lies with the person claiming to be the first to have finally designed one.

You believe that nobody has demonstrated one. You can not know (unless you claim omniscience) that nobody has ever demonstrated one unless you know (omniscience again) for sure that it is not possible. Do you know for sure that it is not possible? Is science, as we have defined it, over?

At the very least you people are dismissive. Not having had any helpful analysis here I will simply continue my design and construction until I satisfy myself that it doesn't work, if that turns out to be the case, or things turn out far more interesting than you can imagine. Either way I will have a deep understanding of something interesting - I did say that it is a curious device and I'm curious and I can't understand why none of you are.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Prajna said:

And that's not arrogant, @exchemist? It's certainly not friendly or helpful. I engage on a number of forums and they are generally friendly. Posting on this topic on an engineering forum I have come in for a certain amount of gentle ribbing and one or two who were less polite and seem to share your convictions, but there have also been many helpful and supportive responses. You are one of the few people on this forum who has offered helpful insights, thank you for that.

You believe that nobody has demonstrated one. You can not know (unless you claim omniscience) that nobody has ever demonstrated one unless you know (omniscience again) for sure that it is not possible. Do you know for sure that it is not possible? Is science, as we have defined it, over?

At the very least you people are dismissive. Not having had any helpful analysis here I will simply continue my design and construction until I satisfy myself that it doesn't work, if that turns out to be the case, or things turn out far more interesting than you can imagine. Either way I will have a deep understanding of something interesting - I did say that it is a curious device and I'm curious and I can't understand why none of you are.

It's no more arrogant than asserting F=ma. 

You have had plenty of helpful analysis here, from me and others, which you acknowledged at the time.

And yes we do know for sure it is not possible, from Noether's Theorem and from 150 years of the collective experience of mankind. There is no earthly reason to think a bit of amateur dicking around with magnets (why is it always magnets? 🙄) is going to overthrow thermodynamics. That is why we are not curious. We know that you are on a wild goose chase, like so many of the other twopenny ha'penny free energy cranks we have come across down the years. Your machine may function, in the sense that the mechanism rotates etc, but you will not get out more work than you put in. Period.   

I've no doubt the engineers enjoy the challenge of helping you make a working machine, again in the sense of the mechanism operating. But thermodynamically, it's going nowhere. 

 

Edited September 21 by exchemist

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Prajna said:

You believe that nobody has demonstrated one. You can not know (unless you claim omniscience) that nobody has ever demonstrated one unless you know (omniscience again) for sure that it is not possible.

If someone had demonstrated one, it would be big news, yet no such news seems to exist. Do you have information to the contrary?

1 hour ago, Prajna said:

Do you know for sure that it is not possible? Is science, as we have defined it, over?

Science is provisional. We will overturn the prevailing view when there is compelling evidence to do so. But it takes a lot, (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they say) when there is so much evidence that the prevailing view is correct.

Conservation of energy is a consequence of time translation symmetry (from Noether’s theorem) and there’s no evidence that the laws of physics are changing over time.

The ultimate response here is going to be to ask for the evidence: where is it?

1 hour ago, Prajna said:

At the very least you people are dismissive. Not having had any helpful analysis here I will simply continue my design and construction until I satisfy myself that it doesn't work, if that turns out to be the case, or things turn out far more interesting than you can imagine. Either way I will have a deep understanding of something interesting -

We kind of expect people to do their own analysis. Not doing it means you won’t (i.e. laziness) or you can’t (lack of knowledge of the math snd/or physics)

Either way, that’s your shortcoming, and your job to fix it. We’re happy to help but you have to ask rather than assert.

1 hour ago, Prajna said:

I did say that it is a curious device and I'm curious and I can't understand why none of you are.

Someone showing up making assertions but without the requisite background knowledge is a rather mundane occurrence. The only difference is the specific implementation, but beyond that it’s kind of boring.

[Prajna]

12 hours ago, swansont said:

If someone had demonstrated one, it would be big news, yet no such news seems to exist. Do you have information to the contrary?

Perhaps you have never heard of Clement Figuera. He was big news and reports about his Infinite Energy Machine were published in the New York Times, several London newspapers, Germany and, of course, Spain (since he was Spanish). He was the kind of crackpot who was rose  to the rank of Inspector of Forests in Spain. It seems he was 'big news' at the time but sadly he died shortly after getting involved with bankers to develop his machine. Certainly, in the 100 odd years since his death nobody seems to have been able to recreate his device and I'm sure you guys all know much better than the scientists of the time now but it was 'big news' then.

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Someone showing up making assertions but without the requisite background knowledge is a rather mundane occurrence.

Take a look back at my first few posts in this topic and indicate the basis of your assertion that I "show[ed] up making assertions". I pointed out some rudimentary and uncontroversial aspects of magnets, sure, but I asked a question rather than asserting any claims of being the first to invent a free energy or perpetual motion machine. Try analysing how I presented the subject compared to how you all reacted. It's telling. Maybe not to physicists because you inhabit a cosy paradigm where the basic assumptions are virtually unassailable and you can quickly dismiss even evaluating anything that may contradict any of the foundations upon which that paradigm is constructed. You do pay lip service to the idea that nothing is fixed in science and that even the central laws can be challenged but really you share Lord Kelvin's certainty that everything of importance has already been discovered and there is only the mopping up of a few minor details to be done.

Y'all may be right about everything but you are not a nice bunch of people to engage with. 

12 hours ago, swansont said:

We kind of expect people to do their own analysis. Not doing it means you won’t (i.e. laziness) or you can’t (lack of knowledge of the math snd/or physics)

Either way, that’s your shortcoming, and your job to fix it. We’re happy to help but you have to ask rather than assert.

Or it means that my bent is engineering rather than maths or physics and that I tend to approach problems from that angle, not that I'm lazy or lack knowledge. I have, since March, taught myself 3D Cad and 3D printing to a level of respectable competence and I am quite capable, though not particularly inclined, to learn whatever is needed to address this subject from a maths and physics angle, if that proves necessary. The respondents in this topic have demonstrated sufficient of their own shortcomings that are rather less becoming than nescience or laziness. 

[exchemist]

48 minutes ago, Prajna said:

Perhaps you have never heard of Clement Figuera. He was big news and reports about his Infinite Energy Machine were published in the New York Times, several London newspapers, Germany and, of course, Spain (since he was Spanish). He was the kind of crackpot who was rose  to the rank of Inspector of Forests in Spain. It seems he was 'big news' at the time but sadly he died shortly after getting involved with bankers to develop his machine. Certainly, in the 100 odd years since his death nobody seems to have been able to recreate his device and I'm sure you guys all know much better than the scientists of the time now but it was 'big news' then.

Take a look back at my first few posts in this topic and indicate the basis of your assertion that I "show[ed] up making assertions". I pointed out some rudimentary and uncontroversial aspects of magnets, sure, but I asked a question rather than asserting any claims of being the first to invent a free energy or perpetual motion machine. Try analysing how I presented the subject compared to how you all reacted. It's telling. Maybe not to physicists because you inhabit a cosy paradigm where the basic assumptions are virtually unassailable and you can quickly dismiss even evaluating anything that may contradict any of the foundations upon which that paradigm is constructed. You do pay lip service to the idea that nothing is fixed in science and that even the central laws can be challenged but really you share Lord Kelvin's certainty that everything of importance has already been discovered and there is only the mopping up of a few minor details to be done.

Y'all may be right about everything but you are not a nice bunch of people to engage with. 

Or it means that my bent is engineering rather than maths or physics and that I tend to approach problems from that angle, not that I'm lazy or lack knowledge. I have, since March, taught myself 3D Cad and 3D printing to a level of respectable competence and I am quite capable, though not particularly inclined, to learn whatever is needed to address this subject from a maths and physics angle, if that proves necessary. The respondents in this topic have demonstrated sufficient of their own shortcomings that are rather less becoming than nescience or laziness. 

You are just trying to shoot the messenger, I'm afraid. I was very patient with you at the start of all this, but there comes a point at which patience is exhausted. You are free to reject the advice you have been given but don't blame us for giving it. 

Make your machine and see for yourself, then. If and when you get it working, I predict this thread will suddenly go very quiet. 😁

[iNow]

3 hours ago, Prajna said:

you are not a nice bunch of people to engage with. 

For pointing to the flaws in your idea? lol. Without that you can’t fix it or make it better.

This isn’t kindergarten when you get a gold star for effort. Members aren’t here to coddle you and protect your ego. Your idea either has merit or it doesn’t. Full stop.

[Mordred]

 Let's ask a simple question.

Do you get angry at your teacher when he tells you, your method or idea won't work ? Or do you take the time to understand why the teacher makes that statement and learn from it.

 With regards to calculations I honestly didn't see much interest to the Maxwell equations I posted earlier on this thread with regards to the experiment. So I stopped mentioning them.

Prior to describing the helical and cyclotronic magnetic moments.

 

Edited September 22 by Mordred

[alebrije0871]

Hi Prajna, to be honest I think you kind or needlessly torpedo'd the thread with this...

"the denizens of such fora are a sarcastic, arrogant and unfriendly lot when it comes to examining such a device"

up until you posted this the responses were actually quite nice interesting and helpful, in my opinion anyway.  I also tried my best to help. Perhaps you were talking about your experiences on other forums.

Also in another place you said something like "is a curious device and I'm curious and I can't understand why none of you are." Please don't be upset that people aren't interested in the device. It's just that its a very bold claim, far outside the realm of what people are familiar with --- it's like if you showed up to a running club and said you have a new technique that you can run 100m in 5 seconds... but no proof, you just wanna talk about it .... people's patience would be very short , until they see it,  I don't it's fair to call it arrogance. 

personally i think it's a cool project, I don't think it will generate over unity energy, but it's neat anyway