Connect with us


Discussion in 'General Electronics' started by Raheman, Feb 19, 2004.

  1. Raheman

    Raheman Guest

    Sorry. I'm saying sorry in advance because I have already posted my
    views. Nonetheless, I have "refined" my paper of my ideas. This will
    be the last post, unless I create a working prototype of one of my


    (1) Inventions
    (2) Bird & Earth
    (3) Work
    (4) Electricity

    -|-|-| (1) INVENTIONS -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-

    1a) The "Wheel" Newton Motor
    1b) The "Seesaw" Newton Motor
    1c) The "Simple" Newton DC Motor
    2a) The "Simple" Newton Engine
    2b) The "Horseshoe" Newton Engine

    These five inventions work on Newton's law that "every action has an
    equal and opposite reaction." The idea is to harness the "action" and
    elimenate the "reaction", or convert the "reaction" into something
    useable. All inventions work without affecting the environment. That
    is, they don't need a road to push off of like cars, they don't have
    to push air like planes or spew out gases space shuttles. They propel
    themselves *internally*. That is, you can put a box around the entire
    device and the box would move, and nothing would enter or exit the
    box, and the device itself wouldn't react with the environment inside
    the box.

    (must be read using a "fixed-size font" to view diagrams)

    =-=-=-1a) The "Wheel" Newton Motor=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

    Side view:

    - | -
    / \ | / \ <----- wheel with magnets
    \ | / installed on the outside
    / \ | / \
    /|\ forward -->
    \ / | \ /
    / | \
    \ / | \ /
    - | -
    ||||||M2 m M1|||||| <--- electromagnets (coils)
    ||||||M2 M1||||||
    --------------------------- <---base

    The magnets "m" are connected to a wheel (which is connected to the
    base [connection not shown]), whereas the electromagnets "M1" and "M2"
    are fastened to the base.

    When one of the magnets "m" reach the bottom, an electric current is
    sent through both electromagnets, creating magnetic poles "M1" and
    "M2". "M1" should repel "m" while "M2" should attract "m". The force
    on the magnet "m" will cause the wheel to turn (in the diagram, that
    would be in a clockwise direction). Meanwhile, the forces on the
    electromagnets "M1" and "M2" will cause the base to move in the
    opposite direction (forward). Once the magnet "m" has moved
    sufficiently far away, the electromagnets "M1" and "M2" should turn
    off so that the next magnet "m" may come into position. So, the base
    will experience a force in one direction, creating useful propulsion,
    while the wheel can be hooked to a generator whose electrical output
    can be used to add more power to the electromagnets.

    Also, a motor may be needed to be connected to the wheel to start its
    rotation, or to maintain it. The electromagnets require a tremendous
    amount of current for a relatively short amount of time. Thus,
    capacitors are ideal. Note that the magnets "m" on the wheel could
    just as well be electromagnets.

    Here's a variation: One could put M1 and M2 onto an "outer" wheel
    which circles the "inner" wheel. The inner wheel would turn
    clockwise, as in the diagram, while the outer wheel would turn
    counterclockwise. Both wheels would be fed into generators. It would
    be interesting to see whether the output power from both generators
    matches (or surpasses) the input power of the two wheels. It's a long
    shot, but this could be a free-energy device.

    =-=-=-1b) The "Seesaw" Newton Motor-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

    Top view:


    \ /\
    \ ||
    o <--seesaw ||
    \ forward


    Ideally, "M1a", "M1b", "M2a", "M2b", "m1", "m2" are all
    electromagnets. "M1a", "M1b", "M2a", and "M2b" are fastened to the
    base, while "m1" and "m2" are connected to a "seesaw" whose pivot
    ("o") is connected to the base.

    When "M1a" and "m1" are nearly touching an electric current is sent
    through "M1a", "M1b", and "m1". "M1a" should repel "m1" while "M1b"
    should attract "m1". Thus, both "M1a" and "M1b" will experience a
    force in the forward direction, while the seesaw swings around
    bringing "m2" close to "M2a". As "M2a" and "m2" are close now, an
    electric current will pass through "M2a", "M2b", and "m2". "M2a"
    should repel "m2" while "M2b" should attract "m2". Again, "M2a" and
    "M2b" will experience a force in the forward direction while the
    seesaw swings back to its starting position to repeat the cycle.
    Thus, the base will experience forward propulsion as the seesaw
    continually swings about.

    If, as the seesaw swings, "m1" hits "M1b" or "m2" hits "M2b", then the
    collision will slow the forward motion. One could avoid this by
    keeping the back electromagnets far enough from the seesaw (as I have
    in the diagram), or a brake could be installed in the pivot to stop
    the complete swing of the seesaw.

    In may seem that if the seesaw swings so hard that "m1" hits "M1a" or
    "m2" hits "M2a" that the force of the collision will cause a forward
    movement. This is wrong. Only the momentum of the seesaw will "push"
    the base forward. However, when the seesaw hits the front
    electromagnets, the entire seesaw will "buckle" and the backward force
    of the electromagnet will be conveyed to the base through the pivot.
    One could avoid this by changing the seesaw by bending it so as to
    make a corner where it attaches with the pivot. Then, connect both
    ends of the seesaw together, ideally, the connection should be a
    curve. After doing that, the seesaw will undoubtly look more like a
    slice of pizza. One could also reduce the slice of pizza to simply an
    electromagnet fastened to a "line" which connects to the pivot. In
    that case, the pizza slice would look more like a mallet (one
    elctromagnet could be used in that case, instead of two).

    Again, the electromagnets require a tremendous amount of current for a
    relatively short amount of time. Thus, capacitors are ideal. Also,
    some the electromagnets can be changed into permanent magnets where it
    is fit.

    =-=-=-1c) The "Simple" Newton DC Motor=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

    Front view:

    --------- <-- wire wheel
    | |
    /-|\ /|-\ <-- frame (holds magnets)
    | |mmmmmmmmm| |
    | --------- | X forward
    _|--mmmmmmmmm--|_ <-- base (into paper)

    ||__ magnets

    Side view:

    / \ <-- wire cylinder

    | OO | forward -->
    \ || /
    __||__ <-- base

    The Simple Newton DC Motor is similar to a regular "simple" DC motor
    except that there is only a portion of the wire exposed to a magnetic
    field. Thus the base experiences a forward movement, while the wire
    wheel experiences a circular motion (in the "side view", the wire
    wheel would move clockwise). The forward motion of the base can be
    used to propel the entire motor (and its load). And of course, the
    circular motion of the wheel can be harnessed to power a generator,
    whose electrical output can then be fed back into the motor.

    It should be noted that this Newton motor is inferior compared with
    the Wheel and Seesaw Newton motors, and with the Newton Engines (which

    =-=-=-2a) The "Simple" Newton Engine=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

    The Simple Newton Engine is simply a cylinder with a piston in it.
    The piston may require wheels to move inside the cylinder.

    STEP 1:
    The idea is to force the piston down the shaft, e.g. by using
    electromagnets or the explosion of gas.

    Side-view (cross-section):

    | ___cylinder
    | ||
    | \/
    || #| forward -->
    | /\
    | ||__ piston ("#")

    STEP 2:
    As the piston moves down the cylinder, the cylinder itself will
    accelerate and gain speed, and thus move forward.

    | ___ The cylinder moves "forward"...
    | ||
    | \/
    | /-------------
    | | # |
    | \-------------
    | /\
    | ||__ the piston moves "back" through the cylinder
    | <--

    STEP 3:
    In fractions of a second, the piston will have arrived at the "back"
    of the cylinder. The piston must be stopped before it slams into the
    back of the cylinder, because if it does, then the energy of the
    piston will cancel out the "forward" velocity of the cylinder. So,
    the energy of the piston must be removed (by friction, e.g. brakes on
    the wheels) or harnessed (a method which converts the "negative"
    energy of the piston into something useable).

    | /-------------
    | | # |
    | \-------------
    | /\
    | ||__The piston must be stopped before it hits the "back"

    STEP 4:
    When the piston has reached the end, and has been brought to a stop,
    it must be moved to the front of the cylinder, perhaps by hooking it
    to a chain which is being pulled by a motor. Perhaps, the piston can
    be removed from the cylinder when it is being transferred to the
    front, and thus leave the cylinder free so that another piston can
    "shoot" through it.

    | /-------------
    | |# |
    | \-------------

    Return to STEP 1:
    The piston has been returned to the front. Overall, the engine has
    moved and gained velocity. Now it is ready to restart at STEP 1.

    | /-------------
    | | #|
    | \-------------

    =-=-=-2b) The "Horseshoe" Newton Engine-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

    The Horseshoe Newton engine is like the Simple Newton engine, except
    that the chamber is a semi-circular loop.

    STEP 1:
    Again, the idea is to force the piston through the chamber, e.g. by
    using electromagnets or the explosion of gas. The piston should only
    experience a force when it is going opposite the forward direction;
    thus, the force on the chamber would be opposite that, that is, in the
    forward direction.

    Top view (cross-section):

    __ __
    piston --> |##| | |
    ("##") | | | |
    | | | | <--chamber
    | | | |
    | | | |
    | \ / | /\
    \ --____-- / ||
    \_ _/ ||
    --______-- forward
    start --> -----------------

    STEP 2:
    As the piston moves through the chamber, the chamber itself will
    accelerate and gain speed, and thus move forward.

    __ __ /\
    | | | | <-- The chamber ||
    | | | | moves forward.. ||
    | | | | the | | | |
    piston --> |##| | |
    moves | \ / |
    through the \ --____-- /
    chamber. \_ _/

    start --> -----------------

    STEP 3:
    In fractions of a second, the piston will have arrived at the other
    side of the chamber. Unlike the Simple Newton engine, the piston does
    not have to be stopped from slamming into the chamber. Infact, when
    the piston slams into the end of the chamber, the chamber will be
    pushed forward.

    __ __
    | | |##| <-- piston slamming
    | | | | into end of chamber
    | | | |
    | | | |
    | | | |
    | \ / |
    \ --____-- /
    \_ _/

    start --> -----------------

    Return to STEP 1:
    Also, note that the piston returns to a suitable position on its own,
    unlike the piston in the Simple Newton engine which needs to be
    "reloaded". Overall, the engine has moved and gained velocity. Now
    it is ready to restart at STEP 1 (from the other side).

    __ __
    | | |##| <-- piston slamming
    | | | | into end of chamber
    | | | |
    | | | |
    | | | |
    | \ / |
    \ --____-- /
    \_ _/

    start --> -----------------

    It should be noted that both Newton Engines (especially the Simple
    one) create a small amount of force for a relatively minute amount of
    time. In my mind, they'd only be effective if many are used
    simultaneously. For example, I imagine that it wouldn't be too hard
    for either Newton engines to have a burst of 5N for a tenth of a
    second. Building a unit of ten thousand of such Newton engines would
    create a combined force of 5000N, assuming that the engines can
    "reload" in 0.9 seconds.

    However, if we can convert the Horseshoe Newton engine into an engine
    which is as quick as the the Internal Combustion engine, then it would
    create a large amount of force. The Internal Combustion engine has a
    cycle of four strokes: the intake stroke, the compression stroke, the
    combustion stroke, and the exhaust stroke. As the piston moves
    through the Horseshoe Newton engine, the combustion stroke for one
    part of the loop can be the compression or exhaust stroke for the
    other side of the loop. That leaves out two strokes which must be fit
    in somehow.

    Magnetic Propulsion for the Newton Engines:


    mmmmm ____ mmmmm <-- "m" are magnets
    mmmm /WWWWWW\ mmmm
    mmm /W/ \W\ mmm
    mm /W/ mm \W\ mm
    m W mmmm W m <-- "W" is a wire coil
    m |W| mmmmmm |W| m
    m |W| mmmmmm |W| m
    m W mmmm W m X forward
    mm \W\ mm /W/ mm (into paper)
    mmm \W\____/W/ mmm
    mmmm \WWWWWW/ mmmm
    mmmmm mmmmm

    If the magnets "m" are arranged such that the field is perpendicular
    to the wire, and if a current is set up in the wire coil, then the
    wire coil will either move forward or backward. This setup can be
    used in either of the Newton engines; the wire coil would be the
    "piston" and the magnets would be part of the "cylinder" or "chamber".
    The wire coil would need wheels on the side so that it could move
    about inside the cylinder or chamber.

    -|-|-| (2) BIRD & EARTH -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-

    Consider an Earth that is stationary and is not affected by any
    external forces. Alone on the Earth is a hummingbird sitting in its
    nest in the world's last tree. The rest of the Earth is totally
    lifeless and motionless. Suddenly, the hummingbird, which has a mass
    of 5 grams, begins to hover 5 kilometers off the ground. The downward
    gravitational force on the hummingbird is given by the equation

    F = G*m_b*m_e / (r+5)²

    where G is the gravitatiional constant
    (6.673 * 10^(-11) Nm²/kg²)
    m_b is the mass of the bird (0.005 kg)
    m_e is the mass of the Earth (5.97 * 10^24 kg)
    r is the radius of the Earth (6.38 * 10^6 m)

    Now, this hummingbird is resilient and has enough energy to hover
    above the ground for 10^19 years. It is obvious that the hummingbird
    is converting chemical energy into kinetic energy. As it flaps its
    wings, two things happen; one, the hummingbird is pushed upward, and
    two, air is pushed downward. Since the hummingbird is a fair enough
    distance from the Earth (5km to be exact), the downward force on the
    air molecules never actually reach the ground because it gets
    distributed amongst other air particles. And so, as this force is
    distributed amongst billions of molecules, none of them ever gain a
    sufficient velocity to reach the ground, and so the force isn't
    conveyed to the ground.

    So, we took care of all the forces, right? Wrong! We only considered
    the gravitational force of the Earth on the bird. But what about the
    gravitational force of the bird on the Earth? That force creates an
    acceleration of

    a = G*m_b / (r+5)²
    = 8.196889698 * 10^(-27) meters/second²

    After 10^18 years, when the hummingbird returns to its nest, the Earth
    will be traveling at a velocity of

    t = 10^19 years
    = 3.15576 * 10^26 seconds

    v = a * t
    = 2.586741663 meters/second

    The Earth was stationary and now it's moving at more than two
    meters per second! Can you account for that? Where did the energy to
    move the Earth come from? Some of you may argue that the bird's
    chemical energy was converted to the Earth's kinetic energy. That's
    quite ridiculous because, as we saw earlier, the chemical energy of
    the bird was transferred to kinetic energy of its wings and then of
    air particles; in simpler terms, the bird's energy simply pushed air,
    nothing more.

    I hope you can clearly see and appreciate that gravity (and other
    forces) create kinetic energy instantaneously out of nothing. But
    notice that at any "instance", the instantaneous energy "cancles out".
    You see, as the bird was hovering, we could say that the bird was
    perpetually falling to the Earth. Likewise, the Earth was perpetually
    falling toward the hummingbird. The forces on each (bird and Earth)
    when taken together, cancel out. However, when that instantaneous
    force is sustained for a real duration of time, it effects its
    environment by adding or removing energy from the system. In this
    case, energy was added to the system; that's why the Earth is moving.

    What does all of this mean? It means that the law of conservation
    of energy is wrong! It means that perpetual motion and free-energy
    devices do not contradict reality!

    -|-|-| (3) WORK -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-

    20 joules equals 20 joules, right? Well, consider the following:

    "Ball A"
    work done = 20 joules
    force = 10 Newtons
    mass = 10 kg
    acceleration = 1 m/s²
    change in distance = 2 m
    initial velocity = 0 m/s
    final velocity = 2 m/s
    change in time = 2 s

    "Ball B"
    work done = 20 joules
    force = 10 Newtons
    mass = 0.1 kg
    acceleration = 100 m/s²
    change in distance = 2 m
    initial velocity = 0 m/s
    final velocity = 20 m/s
    change in time = 2/10 s

    Each ball experienced the same force over the same distance. Each
    ball had the same amount of work done on it. But, Ball A experienced
    a force of 10 newtons for 2 seconds, while Ball B experienced the same
    force for only 2 tenths of a second. However, if you agree that the
    same amount of work was done on each ball, then we can say that "10
    newtons held for 2 seconds can give the same result as 10 newtons held
    for 2/10 of a second!"

    Intuitively speaking, that's ridiculous! If you cannot see the
    intuitive error present here, then the following analogy may help you.
    Consider two classmates, Jack and Jill, both able to hold a one
    kilogram brick. Naturally, holding that brick on Earth is
    approximately equivalent to maintaining a force of 10 Newtons. Let's
    say that Jack held his brick for 20 seconds, and Jill held her brick
    for 2 seconds. Now, without using any scientific jargon, who did the
    most work? If you try to answer that question in plain English, then
    I'm sure you will see the intuitive error presented above. (Even if
    you were to replace Jack and Jill with two tables, and rested the
    bricks on the tables, work is still being done, as I mention below.)

    This leaves the Joule system for work in a bit of a muddle, and I
    fully agree that I'm not exactly sure how to explain this
    short-coming, even though I'm sure I have the start.

    We saw from the analogy that, in plain English, Jack did more work
    than Jill. Thus, work should be (intuitively speaking) proportional
    to force and a duration of time. Using Occam's Razor, the simplest
    equation we can make using work, force and time is "W=Ft". Notice,
    that this means that work done on an object does not neccesarily have
    to create motion by increasing velocity. On the contrary, even if you
    placed a book on a table, work is being done; the table is
    "maintaining" a force, and likewise, the book is "maintaining" a
    force. The work of gravity between the two is causing "stress" at the
    atomic level. Work, in general, does not require an increase/decrease
    in velocity. Thus, I call "W=Ft" the equation of "general" work.

    However, let us consider "effective" work, a word I coined to mean
    work that increases velocity unhindered by other forces. We will see
    below that, effective work is really just general work which is
    allowed to create motion, unhindered.

    Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration. Intuitively speaking,
    it is obvious that force should be proportional to mass and to
    acceleration. However, why isn't there a "coefficient"? And why not
    "mass squared" or "acceleration cubed"? The equation is how it is
    because of two things; one, intuitively, it makes sense not to add
    extra "factors" (Occam's Razor), and two, it simply gives the "right

    Now, let's examine the equation for work as it stands today, that is
    "W=½mv²". Intuitively speaking, "effective" work should be
    proportional to mass and to velocity. However, we added "factors" to
    the equation. Without using scientific or mathematical jargon, I say
    that we should be able to explain, in plain English, why we added
    factors to the equation. And if we can't, then by Occam's Razor, we
    should remove those factors. And, if we do remove all the extra
    factors, and say that the equation for effective work is "W=mv", then
    we have again arrived at the equivalent general equation for work,

    The equation "W=½mv²" seems to work, but does it really? Consider
    dropping a brick from the height of one meter above the ground. Let
    go, and the brick falls. Now, it is said that when you lift the brick
    up to one meter, you have given the brick a "potential energy". But
    let's consider two scenarios, Jack and Jill, each lifting the brick
    from the ground to one meter above the Earth. Jack lifts it in 20
    seconds while Jill lifts it in 2 seconds. True, the outcome is the
    same for either participant. However, in plain English, Jack did more
    work; he did the same amount of "useful" work, but he did a whole lot
    of "useless" work by taking his time.

    Now, work defined as it is today is wrong intuitively, but
    nonetheless, it is a *VERY* *USEFUL* "measuring tool", and it *WORKS*
    with the non-intuitive equation "W=½mv²". That is, it calculates
    "useful" work, but not "useless" work. But intuitively, work should
    encompass both "useful" and "useless" work.

    I know that what I call work is called momentum and so I assert that
    work and momentum should be equivalent and synonymous. And I propose
    that the real unit for work (that is, force multiplied by time) should
    be "P", for Prescott, Joule's middle name. Thus, one prescott equals
    one newton second. I relegate the old, traditional meaning for work
    to the term "typical useful work" or just "typical work".

    If we allow work to equal mass multiplied by velocity then we can say
    that force and work are both forms of energy, but they are apparent in
    different "time frames". That is, work requires a duration of real
    time for an effect to be experienced, while force requires an
    infinitesimal amount of time to have an effect experienced.

    The law of conservation of energy is wrong! There are two reasons
    for this:

    1) The Joule system is wrong (it only encompasses "useful" work)
    2) Attributing potential energy to objects is usually wrong

    "Potential energy" should only be called that so long as the potential
    cannot disappear without being realized. Consider a balloon of
    hydrogen a meter above the ground. The hydrogen has a mass of M.
    Now, if we cause all the hydrogen to undergo fusion, then we'd be left
    with a balloon full of helium and a whole lot of energy. The mass of
    the helium would be approximately 0.992*M. There's a drop in mass.
    But gravitational potential energy is proportional to mass. So, where
    did that minute, but measurable, amount of potential energy go?!? It
    got turned into various forms of energy, e.g. heat, light, sound. Do
    these forms of energy have a gravitational potential energy? I don't
    think so; sound definitely doesn't. So where did that gravitational
    potential energy go?!? I don't know. There's definitely less. So,
    either we say that potential energy was destroyed without being
    realized (quite ridiculous), or we say that the hydrogen balloon never
    truly had a "potential". (I'd go with the second one.)

    In reality, energy is being created all around us instantaneously. (I
    have never seen it be destroyed instantaneously.) When energy is
    created instantaneously, its immediate affect on the system is nothing
    (e.g. for forces, the vectors cancel each other out). After the
    immediate effect, and after a minute amount of real time, this
    instantaneous energy will be found to have either done "positive work"
    on the system or "negative work"; that is, energy will be added to the
    system, or removed. Should this instanteous energy be sustained for a
    longer duration of real time, then the energy might be found to have
    not added or removed any energy from the system (that is, it added the
    same amount of energy that was removed).

    -|-|-| (4) ELECTRICITY |-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-

    Now, I am going to apply work using prescotts on an electrical

    Let's find the average drift velocity:
    A is the average (weighted with respect to L)
    cross-section of the wire (m²)
    n is "free" electrons per unit volume (electrons/m³)
    e is the magnitude of charge of an electron
    (1.602 * 10^19 C/electron)
    v is the average drift velocity of the electrons (m/s)
    I is the current in the (C/s)
    dq is an infinitesmal amount of charge (C)
    dt is an infinitesmal amount of time (s)
    dN is an infinitesmal number of electrons (electrons)
    (1) dq = e*dN

    dN = nAv*dt
    (2) dt = dN/(nAv)

    (1)/(2) dq/dt = e*dN/(dN/nAv)
    I = enAv
    v = I/(enA)

    Let's find force:
    W_j is the Work in Joules (N*m)
    f is the force (N)
    s is the distance (m)
    V is volts (N*m/C)
    W_j = F*s
    dW_j = F*v*dt
    dW_j/dt = F*v
    V*I = F*v

    F = -----

    = VenA

    P is pressure (Pa)
    V = ---

    = --

    We can now omit the use of joules in the description of volts. We can
    say that "Voltage is the electromagnetic-pressure (created by an EMF
    source) per density of charge."

    Notice that the pressure supplied by an EMF has nothing to do with the
    length of the circuit. A battery hooked to a 1 meter circuit of 1cm²
    wire uses the same pressure to start a current as a similar battery
    hooked to a 10000 meter circuit of similar wire!

    W_i is the Initial Work (in Prescotts) (N*s)
    (the work done to start the electrical circuit)
    t is a duration of time (s)
    W_i = F*t
    = VenA*t

    U is Initial Work (in Prescotts) per Coulomb (N*s/C)
    Q is an amount of charge (C)
    p is the resistivity of the wire (ohms)
    l is the length of the wire (m)
    U = W_i/Q
    = F/I
    = (VenA)/(V/R)
    = enAR
    = enA*(p*l/A)
    = enpl

    Now, "U" is a constant for any given circuit. So, given any circuit,
    a constant amount of work is done to move a Coulomb along the circuit.
    Makes sense that it doesn't vary..

    µ is Initial Work (in Prescotts) per Coulomb meter (N*s/(C*m))
    µ = dU/dl
    = enp

    Thus, the rate at which work is done per unit distance depends only on
    the material. Makes sense..

    t_c is the average change in time between electron collisions (s)
    m_e is the mass of an electron (9.109 * 10^(-31) kg/electron)

    Each electron gains "m_e*2v" of energy (remember, we are using
    prescotts) before it makes a collision and losses it's energy. The
    collision will take place in "t_c" seconds. "U" is the amount of work
    to move a Coulomb "l" meters. Thus, in "l" meters, there will be
    "l/(v*t_c)" number of collisions. So,

    l m_e*2v
    ----- * ------ = U
    v*t_c e

    --------- = enpl

    t_c = ----

    which is correct.

    W_t is the Total Work (in Prescotts) (N*s)
    (the total amount of work done by all the electrons)
    l_c is the average length between electron collisions (m)
    a is acceleration (m/s²)

    a = -----

    v = a * t_c

    v = ----- * t_c

    l_c = 2*v*t_c

    = ----- * (t_c)²

    W_t = F * (l/l_c) * t

    = F * -------------- * t
    ----- * (t_c)²

    = ---------- * l * t

    = ----------- * l * t

    = --------- * l * t

    Even though the pressure by a source on two different circuits which
    use the same wire is the same, it's obvious that more *work* is being
    done in a longer circuit. The reason why the force/pressure is the
    same while the work isn't is not hard to understand. An EMF source
    creates "electromagnetic pressure" on the anode and/or cathode. Once
    a circuit is started, this electromagnetic pressure is felt throughout
    the circuit. You can imagine the electrons as being dominoes.
    Whether you have 1 meter of dominoes falling or 10000 meters of
    dominoes falling, the initial force to topple the first domino may be
    the same, and yet, the amount of work done (the number of fallen
    dominoes) can be very different. This obviously means that energy
    *isn't* conserved. That's right.


    P.S. Two masses (e.g. stars) with sufficient velocities can pass by
    each other without colliding and both gain speed. (As I said above,
    gravity can create energy.) I believe that that might be the cause
    for the seeming acceleration of the expansion of the universe, not
    "dark energy". Just a guess..

    by Raheman Velji, unfortunately known as the devil.
  2. ChronoFish

    ChronoFish Guest

    That would be a good idea. Let us know when it works. And not a moment before.
    Calculate how many calories are being expended by the bird. And then answer where he got the energy from. Then you'll know where
    the energy to move the Earth came from.

    The bird is not "just moving air". He is expending enough energy to keep himself hovering at 5m. When he runs out of energy his
    distance from the earth will be zero.

  3. JRW68

    JRW68 Guest

  4. Bill Vajk

    Bill Vajk Guest

    I have a better word for it.

  5. JRW68

    JRW68 Guest

    that works too... the Wow was mainly aimed at the idea someone would
    sit down and type all that crap up...... and for what.....
  6. N. Thornton

    N. Thornton Guest

    You know what, its part of the learning process. If the OP is 13 I'd
    say theyre doing well to have a go and investigate their ideas. To
    learn any subject properly youve got to ask the questions, including
    the ones that others know the answers to. What is wrong is the popular
    learning process which discourages this, thus killing enthusiasm and
    confidence. Also the misperception of learning.

    If OTOH the OP has been posting these supposed inventions for the last
    15 years, snore. If theyre learning about physics for the first time,
    and have just come up with these ideas, good. If so, listen to the
    feedback, and use the greater knowledge thus gained in your next
    design. I reinvented the bridge rectifier, and it taught me that I can
    come up with ideas, tackle and solve problems, and that some of them
    even work. Thats a good thing to learn.

    The first 2 ideas are known motor mechanisms, the rotary one being
    fairly similar to popular dc motors today, except that the rotor and
    stator are swapped round, ie the magnets are round the outside with
    the coils on the rotor. The commutator is used to switch the coils on
    and off.

    The others wont work too good. Friction between 2 objects means that
    each object exerts force on the other one. The end result is the same,
    just that with friction present they dont adjust their speeds
    instantly, but take a little time.

    There really is no action without reaction. When the flying bird beats
    its wings 5 miles up it pushes the nearby air molecules which push
    more air molecules which eventually push the earth - the difference
    with great height is that the push on earth is spread out over a very
    large area, and is thus so small you wouldnt notice it.

    And - everyone comes up with this one - when you feed energy round a
    loop all that happens is you lose some of it at each conversion
    process. The motor isnt 100% efficient, the generator isnt either.
    101% efficient processes are very hard to come by.

    Regards, NT
  7. JRW68

    JRW68 Guest

    if he is 13yrs old or however old... it doesn't matter... i give him
    credit for learning if that is what he is doing. I guess the whole
    thing sounded alot like Fracture mechanics in the point of view of
    A.A. Griffith.. which as engineers we have to learn for our FE
    exams.... in short his assumptions jumps back and forth between
    brittle and ductile materials which are completly opposite in the
    study of fracture. Which is kind of retarded. I took Rahemans ideas
    as someone who is trying to redefine some of the basic laws of
    physics that have been held true for ages. If he is out to learn I
    mean no disrespect and hope he continues to learn.
  8. Bill Vajk

    Bill Vajk Guest

    Check this out:

    Complete with the Jack and Jill and bricks story.

    Here's a whole passel of them.

    Whether this is a crackpot or a junior crackpot doesn't influence
    me in the least. He's spewing crap all over usenet, and I won't
    call it a silk purse because PERHAPS he's young.
  9. JRW68

    JRW68 Guest

    hahaa...... then i stick with my first couple statements... way too
    much time on his hands... gotta love the internet
  10. N. Thornton

    N. Thornton Guest

    We all write crap on usenet. Those that never put a foot wrong dont
    post anything. Talking crap is not itself the problem. And age has
    nothing to do with it either. It depends what else is going on, and
    that we dont know.

    My first reaction was also 'what is this ----', but then I stopped.
    I've posted a lot more than one posts worth of non-runner ideas
    myself, and must have written 100 for every one I show someone. The
    brain is a production line, and like any production line it produces
    useful goods and crap, both. And to learn one has to clear out the
    crap, debunk the errors, learn the subject. That, per se, is not the
    problem, its the solution. It is also what we spend a fair bit of our
    time on this ng and others discussing.

    IMHO it only gets to be a bad thing when someone gets stuck in a
    senseless rut, and generally wastes everyones time with repetitive
    bullshit. makes me wonder where this OP was at with this one - who
    knows. OP?

    Regards, NT
  11. Bill Vajk

    Bill Vajk Guest

    For the most part, agreed.
    I found a track record of reptitive bullshit. "Who knows"? It isn't
    usually important enough to chase in depth. If he's true to his
    word that he'll quit till he can actually demonstrate what he's
    talking about then there's no problem, case closed.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day