Rewriting the Laws of PHYSICS

[nwaogu]

we were reading the website of "Wikipedia" yesterday and we saw something weird saying: "Perpetual Motion Machines arent impossible but with evidence can there be a rewriting of the Laws of PHYSICS"

 

Perpetual Motion machines can work we believe, only if you design them to do so.

Physicists like Joules, Carnot etc developed The Laws of Thermodynamics so as to blame their inefficiency of making one that works

 

Scientists if you dont know make up laws when the failed on attempting a Holy Grail and try to make their names better than being a fool.

 

Carnot tried making a 100% heat engine.

Isnt it?

but failed and developed the 2nd law of thermodynamics

 

What the hell will carnot be working on a 100% heat engine (perpetual motion machines which we all call the Carnot engine that failed to work of course) and later have something to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics that proved what he was interested in wrong.

 

Split personality dont you think so.

[Klaynos]

No I don't think so.

 

Scientists change their minds about things being possible, and if carnot had not developed his cycle it is posible the second law may not have beeen developed so early.

 

Have you studied statistical mechanics? If not then you wont understand that there is more than one formation of the second law. The statistical one being the most theoretical.

 

It is true that in science if any evidence comes along to disprove a theory then that evidence is openly accepted. But no REAL heat engine has ever been developed or theorised that would be more efficient thab the carnot cycle. Which is a theoretical heat engine.

[nwaogu]

got a website for you:

http://www.sliphead.com/article.php?story=20050408045231127

[[Tycho?]]

we were reading the website of "Wikipedia" yesterday and we saw something weird saying: "Perpetual Motion Machines arent impossible but with evidence can there be a rewriting of the Laws of PHYSICS"

 

Perpetual Motion machines can work we believe' date=' only if you design them to do so.

Physicists like Joules, Carnot etc developed The Laws of Thermodynamics so as to blame their inefficiency of making one that works

 

Scientists if you dont know make up laws when the failed on attempting a Holy Grail and try to make their names better than being a fool.

 

Carnot tried making a 100% heat engine.

Isnt it?

but failed and developed the 2nd law of thermodynamics

 

What the hell will carnot be working on a 100% heat engine (perpetual motion machines which we all call the Carnot engine that failed to work of course) and later have something to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics that proved what he was interested in wrong.

 

Split personality dont you think so.[/quote']

 

I dont think so. Instead I think you dont know what you are talking about.

[swansont]

Build, then post. Yakity, yak, yak. It's boring to hear about how it's possible.

[nwaogu]

trying the URL we posted for review lately, but seems like it no longer works that is exist again.

Sorry for the inconvinence.

used another alternative: http://ddnpmfng.tripod.com/perpetualmotion

[swansont]

Have you built it yet, and made it run?

[Klaynos]

oc he/she/they havn't

 

I take it your sometimes a magnet sometimes a metal things are electromagnets?

 

How do you counter friction from air ressistance?

 

Actually why am I bothering to read this/ask questions it's bs... Yes that may be mildly dismissive but *shrug*

[nwaogu]

oc he/she/they havn't

 

I take it your sometimes a magnet sometimes a metal things are electromagnets?

 

How do you counter friction from air ressistance?

 

Actually why am I bothering to read this/ask questions it's bs... Yes that may be mildly dismissive but *shrug*

 

Guy, we meant that the attracting metal which is usually a metal can be replaced with a magnet and then called the attracting magnet and still the machine can work only if obeys the principle of surge forces that it should have a different magnetic pole from the chamber magnet.

 

If we showed ourselves with the machine working, you guys might change your tongue. You all will definitely say that machine is working with either an electric motor or WHAT?

You wouldnt agree that it is truely working without any fuel supply, so why we doing it. Simply read it, understand it (if you dont understand it, mail us, we are glad to teach you better), build one that works and see for yourself. since you cant decieve or lie to yourself.

[the tree]

If[/size'] we showed ourselves with the machine working, you guys might change your tongue.

If I walked on water then I'm sure someone somewhere would give a damn, but as it's not going to happen, pondering what people would thing is moot.

[danny8522003]

Why can't you build it to prove it works?

[Connor]

one good thing about that site, it has cool things that follow your cursor around.

 

yep.

[nwaogu]

lol

it's us again

dominic and donatus nwaogu aka ddnpmfng

we just wanted to paint this post black by dropping that our web site now has the picture of the apparatus used to test out the 2 successful simple principles or cycles of our perpetual motion design (in which you call a longish drivel)

wish us a happy 16th birthday

we just turned 16 today.

Here it is

[ydoaPs]

does your perpetual motion machine work?

[Klaynos]

does your perpetual motion machine work?

 

It wont be perpetual

 

Happy birthday You might want to put some descriptive text + arrows on the pic

[bascule]

I built a perpetual motion machine. It runs on my own capacity for self-delusion.

[GutZ]

I built a perpetual motion machine. It runs on my own capacity for self-delusion.

 

 

And you can have it all for the low price of 19.99 and we'll even throw in a FREE custom made tomato slicer!

[nwaogu]

yes it works of course.

well just as we predicted, you all will doubt it as usual though you see it.

it goes for only 2 cycles and if there was more woods and metals in a circular form then will it move forever.

since little funds we just made this one

although when we get to may be 19 years old. we will make the full machine and take it to the press. then will you guys know what we are saying.

[insane_alien]

it goes for only 2 cycles

 

Since when was perpetual downgraded from infinity to 2?

[Royston]

Since when was perpetual downgraded from infinity to 2?

 

Slight discrepancy there...still the machine certainly looks 'state of the art' if nothing else. I'd definetly opt for 'wood' as a material, if I were to build a device that would defy the laws of physics.

[ydoaPs]

yes it works of course.

...

it goes for only 2 cycles

yep, so perpetual.....

[Klaynos]

it goes for only 2 cycles and if there was more woods and metals in a circular form then will it move forever.

 

Firstly it wont.

 

How do you over come friction due to air? (there are SO MANY possible arguments I just picked one)

[alt_f13]

I think your experiment might sound a little more credible if you didn't use made up words to describe how it works.

[Phi for All]

No offense, but to recap, this is what I understand so far:

 

You had an idea for a perpetual motion device that defies conventional theories of physics (no problems there, theories change when new discoveries are made).

 

You met with some skepticism, some of it not so nice (natural, since no one else has ever made one work, but perhaps discourteous).

 

You made a prototype that cycles twice before it's motion ceases (problem here, since I can make a device that will complete at least twenty cycles before stopping, using a rubber band and a pencil).

 

You come back with a picture of the prototype which, according to you, should "paint this post black" and make us all feel tiny and insignificant in the shadow of your greatness. This device only completes two cycles but would go forever it it had more wood and metal in a circle (I'm assuming you don't mean enough to make an "infinitely big" circle).

 

I'm always amazed that we lesser minds always fail to grasp the greater concepts when shown a picture of them. We've all been waiting for someone to come along with this very invention, using inexpensive 2x4 technology and a willingness to defy the law in a quest for the greater good. Salutes, brothers, I hope the press does this story justice.

[mooeypoo]

There's something I must ask, in light of this entire post, and in light of these nice young boys' site.

 

See, I've been reading around your site, seeing books about "Einstein's Mistake", "Against the Laws of Physics" and such and such..

 

These are quite heavy subjects to publish books about, when only 16. I must ask you: Where do you study these things? Where did you bring all these new theories from? I've read some of your books from Lulu, the ones that are free (Sorry, but I'm not throwing money around for these ) and they're absolutely, totally, and rediculously unfounded.

 

Now.

 

It's wonderful to explore - it is! And specifically at such relatively young age, to be interrested in physics and science, and to try and find new theories and new ways to explore the existing ones. I, myself, am an agnostic. I believe everything should be doubted, and I see no problem with you doubting - or trying to rewrite - the laws of physics.

But there are ways to do that. The ways are through logical review of the existing facts, by conducting experiments, explaining them, resorting to the rewriting-of-physics in case the laws don't apply to that experiment's results.

 

You don't do that.

 

You just arbitrarily suggest to change the laws of nature.

 

If you want to study physics, you need to understand the basic form of handling scientific methods and research. I do believe that your misconceptions and flawed logical exclamations ("perpetual motion machine that works for 2 cycles"..) are driven from your young age. It's okay, we've all been there I'm assuming.

 

When I was 14 I created a drawing (quite elaborated, I must add) of a new way to fly, using electrecuted boots and an electromagnetic floor. Good thing I wasn't a builder.

 

Before you go out lashing at the laws of physics people have worked hard to write - years and decades of research and experiments - the least you could do to honor those people - even if they're wrong - is to support your own work with research.

 

Until you do that, you'll be concidered juvenile flukes.

And no one will listen to your ideas.

And that - TRUELY - is really a shame.

 

It's with the likes of you - young minds that are interrested and curious - that the next generation of science will grow.

I just suggest you learn how to approach it correctly, so you could one day join the list of scientific success.

 

Perhaps you will build a perpetual-motion machine one day.

It will take much studying and quite a heapload of experimenting from the point you are in now.

 

Good Luck!

 

~moo