PrisonPlanet Forum
May 24, 2013, 07:28:48 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Energy = Motion or E=v (and a little battle on YouTube)  (Read 9016 times)
Undertow
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38



« on: June 23, 2011, 02:03:22 PM »

Yeah they say you need to pick your battles. The thing is that I've been in this exact type of battle before, and I already know exactly where it will end. Nowhere.

So as you can see, my name on YouTube is IamNemoN01. I'm arguing against ZoeMarks.

I'm 100% convinced that these people who constantly thrash these free energy videos are government reps. There are thousands of scams out there; but these videos are selling NOTHING. So who is it hurting by posting them? The answer is that if more people learn how easy it is to make electricity out of practically nothing, it will "hurt" the men who gain from the present enslavement to fossil fuels.

When I was about 16 or 17, I came up with this magnet motor idea myself. (I see today that the concept makes so much sense that I was not the only one who realized the potential of natural magnets.) I went to work on a prototype and blueprints, and was very selective of who I spoke to about it. But in my research over the years (without the internet back then) I also learned about all the inventors who have introduced alternate energy sources, and had either been killed, or just ruined. Tesla is only the most prominent to come to mind. I was weighing how far I should take the project when two relatively wealthy people offered to fund me. But ultimately I decided that it would be a waste of my time and of resources, and stopped development.

I know I can't convince the person on YouTube; but I CAN put out the call there for people to experiment.



__________________________________________________________________________
My call is this...

I present this simple equation: E=v (where E=energy, and v=velocity or motion)


Einstein's equation discusses time (time movement and space/time) and mass, and touches on the movement of objects in relation to speed; but it's a little deficient on mass's movement translation to energy (or at least it is in application). I have two separate theories, one involving the movement of physical objects, and the other involving light in particular which could be an addendum to E=MC2, but I won't dare yet propose replacing it (E=MC2 works pretty darned well so far). But let us not get into the theory of light (or some theory of everything which may not even exist—perhaps there is no theory of everything and there is simply just two theories). My light theory will take many more years to work out, and is very involved—but is thus far proving theoretically workable.

(I fully realize that even here on this site, that proposing this E=v may be met with much scoffing, laughing, heckling, and attempts to ruin my credibility by perhaps projecting out to others the idea that I never graduated grade school; but I don't care. I've played this game before. Such assumptions are just dirty pool tactics, and low blow, cheep shots for lack of credible evidence against what I present - and they are in actuality scarecrow arguments to draw people away from learning the hidden truth. I'm confident in who I am and what I know and understand.)

Energy = motion. This is not a "theory" at all, because it is tested and true avery day, and has been tested and proofed throughout history - for nothing that makes energy is inert. Take water for example. It is living, and can produce energy in many many ways. When we drink it, water's stored energy charges our bodies. And if you extract hydrogen from it, we see the same - a transference of energy. But what happens to water that is not moving? It becomes stagnant. It is dead. It can benefit nothing and must be recycled and recharged. This too is done by motion - for without motion it could not evaporate or be brought up into the atmosphere to recharge.

We can take this water in motion = energy farther by discussing any of the methods in which we implement it as an electricity source. Think about the following: Steam, Ocean Wave Power, Water Mill Generators, Or what ever you can think of, and think - would ANY of these be possible without motion? No. if you stop the wave, or the river, or the force and motion of the steam's excited molecules, then harnessing energy is absolutely impossible by these means. Energy = Motion.



__________________________________________________________________________
The Truth About Energy

This is the little dirty secret that the governments don't want the average person knowing. They would like us all to believe that YES matter = energy; but only if we can somehow burn it. But even in those systems motion is a must. And the only reason we understand ANY of the alternates to burning is that non government people and teams and companies have experimented, learned, and proven them before the government could blackball them.

I was always the kid who experimented with EVERYTHING. I took things apart so I could know how they worked. In time relatives began buying me things to take apart because I was disassembling all their things (this didn't stop me from taking their stuff apart). In time I was the one who could also fix or make anything.

One of the simplest things I learned at about the age of 8 was that energy = motion. I did this by taking a small motor (generator) out of a toy battery operated truck, and simply hooking the motor's wires up to a small light and spinning the center shaft by hand. WOW, you don't "need" the battery to light up the light. You just need to put the generator into motion.

The government's view, and the view they have instilled into the education system is that combustion = energy, and almost every 'excepted' form of energy involves combustion or burning. The "internal combustion engine" operates off this principle. But what we are really seeing inside a combustion engine is that SOME FORCE is moving pistons. It is the movement within the engine, and not the combustion that is the true source of the energy and power. This has already been proven with solar and electric cars where there is no combustion. Rebuilding the motor (which changes it from being a combustion engine) accomplishes the same thing without combustion. So ANYTHING that moves the main shaft of the motor can provide the motion for the car to run. Gearing and perhaps stored energy can take care of the rest. (Let us not get too technical with the full mechanics of combustion engines and generators which has filled whole textbook sized books.)

So the simplest breakdown of E=v is that if an object moves at a constant rate and with a constant force, then some energy can be extracted from the apparatus through it's movement.

In a standard AC motor, we get movement by electricity (perhaps from a wall outlet) powering up an electro magnet system. But when we reverse this, and put propeller blades on the shaft, and put it on a large pole in a windy area, the motor has been inverted in a sense. Instead of electricity powering the motor, the motor is providing electricity by air flow - hence the "propeller" which suggests being propelled - or, movement (v) has made electricity or energy (E).

The fact is that if it has constant movement, it can provide electricity with little to no resistance (most motors use high resistance where it is not necessary to have resistance. Resistance is necessary for torque but not for electricity production. In fact resistance is avoided to get shafts to spin faster and produce more electricity in power plants. See, they know this. Torque is often ADDED to motors because resistance means more drag, which means more energy consumption, which spells more money for the power provider. A man posted a complete how to video to YouTube that showed how to remove resistance from electro magnet motors that increased power output, and the government keeps taking his video down.) This movement = motion has been known for generations; but it is kept out of textbooks. It is not taught as such in accepted schools and books, so it is deemed social and scientific Heresy to speak it - and you WILL be flogged, socially ruined, or burned at the stake for it in some fashion or another - just like in the dark ages - nothing has changed. But take a look on YouTube and you will see perhaps a good hundred working examples (proofs) that this is true science. For instance, one kid hooked up a belt, stretched it taut, affixed magnets to the center of the belt, put it in front of a blowing fan, and had it pass through (flap or wave through) motor windings to light up a bulb. This is one of many examples that prove that motion, not heat or combustion = energy.

I have much more to say on this subject.



__________________________________________________________________________
But what I would propose is that a group of people work out working models of these alternate energies, and instead of trying to get recognition and money for them, to mass e-mail the full schematics and building plans. If everyone had full WORKING plans, then the governments (or those in charge) would scramble to shut it down and would be fighting everyone at once. Could you see them suddenly shutting down Radio Shack and taking baking soda off the market, maybe saying that the FDA has deemed it a poison? lol Or have them say on the news not to open the email because it contains the world's deadliest virus that will explode your computer and burn your house down—this can be counter measured with a clever preemptive. Stop caring so much about recognition, fame, and monetary gain. Forgo those which you will never receive anyway for the sake of free energy and sticking it to the man. You'll quicker receive a bullet in the head or an "accident" by the gov. than recognition and money.



__________________________________________________________________________
So here is the little micro battle on YouTube. It's more of a joke than anything—but I would like to convince others that electricity is easily and elementary obtainable through motion. And they (the government gofers) have to keep sending people there to comment and heckle anyone who presents these ideas - because they are afraid that people will learn the truth about energy and science. So they heckle the inventors and try to scare off anyone who could be a would be inventor. Most people are highly concerned about social status and fitting in, so this is effective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc9rbysrv24&feature=email&email=comment_reply_received


—Rx
Logged

I'm Revolting.
Undertow
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38



« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2011, 02:46:08 PM »

In case anyone asks, to come up with a more precise equation would be difficult if not impossible. The reason is that in order to assign an exact value, there are too many variables. Each generator has it's own qualities and variables which consist of components, resistance, and resulting power output. To add to that output one must consider working conditions. I understand electricity measurements; but applying energy in relation to movement is different. I believe this opens a new field. Further, I lack a perfectly controlled environment to calculate precise readings—and without a controlled environment each atmosphere carries it's own properties. I have a relatively good grasp of physics which I took on for non related subjects; but I'm not a mathematician. Anyway, true science is performed and perfected in the field—and any scientist will agree. In order to get a more exact formula a fuller study of energy as a whole is necessary, and applying a constant. Water may be a good constant. I know many such studies exist pertaining to energy; but I believe something more precise would be needed to make this calculation. But the real point is that this is proven science and that people need to recognize it and experiment on their own. So let us purposely put a question mark there as to a value to make way for those taking the journey to explore... and discover.

Besides, I like the simplicity of the formula as is. We often make complicated what is simple to understand. I read once a psychological explanation of teaching others where the writer explained that when people teach a young child that they make things easy to understand; but when one teaches an adult the same thing they make it complex - yet the subject never changed, the content did, and adult's learning processes are not greatly different than children's As someone who has taught many, I have had great success with the simpler is better technique and have been thanked many times.
Logged

I'm Revolting.
xfahctor
Guest
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2011, 03:00:42 PM »

 From what I am able to understand, you are trying to design a device that has magnets turning a generator, Yes? And you are proposing using an electric motor for the generator portion of this device? If this is the case (on both counts), here are my thoughts.
 Using a motor for a generator is not all that unusual. Many people who build their own wind generators use things like alternators, dc motors, etc for the actual power generation. They will work just fine if you use the right ones.
 The problem though is going to come in trying to use magnets to turn it. When a the motor's circuit is not closed, it is pretty easy to turn. How ever, close that circuit and it become much harder. It is going to be nearly impossible to get enough torque out of a magnet drive, it simply will not drive the load that generator is going to put on it. Even the heavy industrial neodymium magnets are not going to be sufficient for something like this. I don't think magnets are going to do the job for the type of power you are looking to generate.
Logged
Elder
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2011, 03:33:38 PM »

You're not wrong Undertow.  When I was about 16 I started learning about engines and energy too.  I thought the same things you posted here.

I took it a little further and decided I was only witnessing half the process.  The released/ radiated energy that we can detect is a part of a process in which the energy is transferred/ transformed, and returns to a state of potential energy that we are unable to detect.  The amount of potential energy in the universe is by far a greater amount than the radiating/ radiated energy that we can detect.

Energy isn't motion exactly, it's just that we can only detect/ use kinetic energy.  (You probably were referring to "energy we can use")  We can't measure the potential energy.  We can destroy (change the state of) something using a method and say that "by this method the amount of energy released is X per X" but we can't measure potential energy directly.

Bringing the invisible potential energy into existence for our use is the dillio I've been thinking about in the back of my head for years now.
We'll get there.  Just have to think outside the box long enough...
Logged
Undertow
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38



« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2011, 04:52:56 PM »

From what I am able to understand, you are trying to design a device that has magnets turning a generator, Yes? And you are proposing using an electric motor for the generator portion of this device? If this is the case (on both counts), here are my thoughts.
 Using a motor for a generator is not all that unusual. Many people who build their own wind generators use things like alternators, dc motors, etc for the actual power generation. They will work just fine if you use the right ones.
 The problem though is going to come in trying to use magnets to turn it. When a the motor's circuit is not closed, it is pretty easy to turn. How ever, close that circuit and it become much harder. It is going to be nearly impossible to get enough torque out of a magnet drive, it simply will not drive the load that generator is going to put on it. Even the heavy industrial neodymium magnets are not going to be sufficient for something like this. I don't think magnets are going to do the job for the type of power you are looking to generate.



Thank you for your reply. But I'm not "trying to design a devise." Smiley

I have in the past made a weak version of this in a working model. And yes, the idea of using already existing technology to transform the motion into energy (such as an alternator) is implied in what I wrote. I made sure to try to cover as many bases as possible. There would after all be no need to "invent" completely new technologies for this, or we should also invent new alternatives to metal and wire.

As for torque from the closed circuits. There are already magnets that exert some 800 foot pounds of force. Two such magnets exerting against one another is doubled (just like two cars traveling toward one another going 50mph = a 100mph crash). And neodymium magnets can be made any size, strength, or shape. Besides this, frictionless motors are already available. Either way, I'm confident that the technology exists. Turbine powered generators already provide very little resistance and yet produce mass amounts of energy. I have friends who are off the grid who can attest to this.

In fact the PRIME claim against these magnet motors in the past has been that they will never spin. There is a video on YouTube somewhere where some man makes one exactly like the one in this video, and when he closes the arm - BY HAND - the magnets make complete contact with no resistance - and he complains that he spent thousands of dollars for a devise that doesn't even spin. This is clearly a hoax - because as I noted above, the foot pound force of these magnets could crush ones finger or hand. Anyone has tried pushing semi powerful magnets together with great difficulty. So those were clearly not magnets in his devise. Just a Gov. rep trying to deceivingly debunk magnetic motors.
Logged

I'm Revolting.
Undertow
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38



« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2011, 03:08:37 AM »

You're not wrong Undertow.  When I was about 16 I started learning about engines and energy too.  I thought the same things you posted here.

I took it a little further and decided I was only witnessing half the process.  The released/ radiated energy that we can detect is a part of a process in which the energy is transferred/ transformed, and returns to a state of potential energy that we are unable to detect.  The amount of potential energy in the universe is by far a greater amount than the radiating/ radiated energy that we can detect.

Energy isn't motion exactly, it's just that we can only detect/ use kinetic energy.  (You probably were referring to "energy we can use")  We can't measure the potential energy.  We can destroy (change the state of) something using a method and say that "by this method the amount of energy released is X per X" but we can't measure potential energy directly.

Bringing the invisible potential energy into existence for our use is the dillio I've been thinking about in the back of my head for years now.
We'll get there.  Just have to think outside the box long enough...


Yes you're right, I am referring to energy we can detect. I wrote an explanation once to account for much of the energy we can't account for. The larger portion of galaxies, as you surely know, are made up of unaccounted for mass or energy. I once argued with a group that radio waves are energy. There was a man who made a simple circuit that picks up radio frequencies and converts it to a low power energy source (electricity). I thought that made radios that run off outlets one of the greatest ironies - because if you can pick up radio freq and turn it into electricity, then they should provide their own power. I would love to get my hands on that circuit; but as with most of these inventions, the gov. keeps removing his videos.

Also, it's true that energy is not motion; but they are inseparable. In the same way, energy is not mass; but again, they are inseparable and have a direct correlation to one another. Mass can be converted into energy, but turning pure energy into mass is still in the realm of SciFi—it may work in an equation; but many theories work as equations until they are inverted and found deficient. (And any knowledgable music professor will tell that a note is not the same as it's octaves; they just bare a resemblance. See the book The Science of Sound.)

As for potential energy, when an object is inert, it is not producing energy. It only has a potential. So I'm not even considering that. Almost everything has potential energy. Anything that can burn has potential energy; but it must be ignited - yet we don't generally look at a piece of wood as energy just because it is potential energy. This I would have to say is a separate subject. But most potential energy can be calculated.
Logged

I'm Revolting.
Undertow
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38



« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2011, 01:17:57 AM »

I wrote a fuller version of this in a column on a poetry site I post to in case anyone is interested (yes I write poetry - very sappy poetry).

I'm hoping actually that this will be argued some more - but I need to put this out to more scholars - that's where the real fun is. If you read my 2nd conclusion, you would laugh laugh laugh. There is an irony to my equation that is stellar. I had a man argue against me the other day, a friend who has degrees in physics, and he doesn't even realize yet what has happened. I'm suspecting he will be a little upset at me when he realizes the punchline. I'll reveal it when I've had enough arguments to make the irony complete. This is for psychological research purposes. It's interesting when people don't realize that they are actually arguing against themselves, while agreeing with you.

http://allpoetry.com/column/8774227-E_v_The_Death_of_The_Power_Outlet___the_Reinventing_of_an_Old_Equation-by-Jules_T._Roberts


—Rx
Logged

I'm Revolting.
lolbot
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #7 on: August 17, 2011, 09:34:19 AM »

I present this simple equation: E=v (where E=energy, and v=velocity or motion)

No. Energy doesn't equal velocity, V is acceleration in relation to an object, hence why energy is equivalent to the acceleration of the mass of an object squared, or E=MC2 (C being in this instance, the speed, or the velocity, of light).

You really should take a conceptual physics class with a lab requirement so you can learn and actually understand these and other formulas. Also, for anyone (primarily scientists, namely physicists) to even begin to consider your postulation you need to actually prove it. By demonstrating it in a lab setting. So we can duplicate it. It's called the scientific method.
Logged
Undertow
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38



« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2012, 01:37:10 PM »

Well my idiot friend. You fell right into my trap—and I'm laughing. You see there is a hidden joke written within my writeup, one that I have caught several physicists, wannabe-physicists, and smartasses on in the past.

The C in the relativity equation represents SPEED (or speed of light). Therefor [v] and [C] both represent speed/velocity.

The ‘c’ comes from the Latin word "celeritas", meaning swift.

They both mean the same thing, because speed means speed. Do you see the joke yet?

I simply use the proper letter, representing something we can ALL relate to (not magical sciences).




Einstein only CHOSE to use the C in his equation because it most closely represented the constant of light which he used to both establish condense the equation. It makes more sense (in this particular case) from a Physicist's point of view to use the constant within the equation, as the constant happened to represent the same part of the equation - speed/velocity.

http://www.molwick.com/en/movement/012-velocity.html

If you understood the correlation between Speed & Velocity you wouldn't have spoken (too soon), which lets me know automatically that you don't know what you're talking about, because that is one of the more basic principles of physics.

Yes my little friend, you fell right into my trap. I only REWORDED Einstein's equation; but in a way that makes more sense to the average person. WHY DID I DO THIS???

FOR ONE, to catch people like you who want to make energy into something complex and mysterious. Because I wanted to see how many people I could get to inadvertently make fun of Einstein's theory by inadvertently trying to prove E=MC2 wrong by trying to disprove the exact same thing by my simply rewording it. Cheesy (Seriously laughing out loud here!!!)

AND SECONDLY, because, Nikola Tesla understood what I do when he said of Einstein's Relativity theory: It's "a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles, and makes people blind to underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... it's exponents are brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists…”—Nikola Tesla

Nikola Tesla understood how simple it is to get energy from various sources, and most any source... and for it, he was ruined by those who didn't want him to give "free energy" to the world... in the same way I'm ridiculed today. Considering Tesla had already invented WIRELESS technology in the late 1800s. And he brought to us more than Einstein ever did. Rather than bring us an equation that is only good for wormhole theory, black-holes, and time-travel, Tesla brought us AC electricity, the 1st light bulb, and many other inventions... not to mention, as noted, he set the foundation for all our wireless technology today.

So don't think you can squash my writeup with a simple-minded observation (which is completely wrong).

You only added impetus and validity to what I said above. Thank you.

The joke was on you.




For the complete writeup...

http://allpoetry.com/column/8774227-E_v_The_Death_of_The_Power_Outlet___the_Reinventing_of_an_Old_Equation-by-Jules_T._Roberts


Logged

I'm Revolting.
anxiom
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2012, 04:16:53 PM »

Well, undertow, let me say nothing of the following is meant in any way as an insult, so don't take it as it.

First of all, I agree to some degree with lolbot. There exists a so called "scientific process" - and that for a reason. So if you think you can prove that some theory is wrong, you have to give 100% of all needed data to reproduce the findings. Anything that is not 100% reproducible is a waste of time, because you can't derive any knowledge at all from that, simply because it is uncertain and vague (you would wonder how often this simple rule is broken by modern science due to purely egoistic and capitalistic reasons). This, sadly, is the exact area in which many "alternative energy guys" lack. Prove is not simply retelling someone's story, but replication and verification of findings. Up to now I read dozens of stories in which people say it is so "simple" to produce free energy and present blueprint of completely unproven and not analyzed blueprints of "easy to construct" machines, while not a single person is able to present a working prototype that is analyzed by other scientists that are independent.

Btw., I study physics as a 2nd second subject (actually in germany, which is also the reason for my quite bad english, so sorry for that) and believe me: Every physicist I met dreams of free energy, but so far we've not been able to find any indication for its existence although physicists are quite aware of the fact, that many observations can't be described and/or predicted in a satisfying way.

Now also note that physics is one of the hardest subjects there is, and also that for a reason. I don't quite know enough about the education system in the US, but here I can tell, what you learn in studying physics is just way, way, way, waaay beyond anything you would learn at college or graduate school.
If you dig into quantum physics you will soon realize that any intuition you could use in usually observable (in approximation newtonish) space simply fails. And actually, we suck so much that we're not even able to precisely predict the motion behavior of a simple pendulum. There are numerous simple examples like that in which our theories simply fail and we are forced to approximate (sometimes bluntly). It is also simply wrong to state that physicists tend to "over complicate" things, because I was taught to even prefer less precise solutions,  if the alternative would extremely blow up the theory without benefits which would make this overhead acceptable. This is a consensus in physics: Create a theory that is as simple as possible.

And btw, what Tesla wanted to achieve was "wireless transfer" of energy with radiation, which was clearly way ahead of his time. Yet I wait to see any real prove (and frankly, many of these "free energy guys" should learn the absolutely basics of epistemology and look up the actual meaning of the word "prove") that his research extended beyond that.

And, concluding... I really think that a hell lot of knowledge was lost over the years, but by spreading simple mysticism we won't get it back.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!