Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008

Calm the f.ck down. Stupid ideas do not deserve to be coddled
especially when there is centuries of precedent saying the idea is
stupid.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

The Stanley Steamer using hydrogen to fire its boiler needs to be
brought back. It is clean, needs no gears,and is very quiet.  I lived in
Newton Ma. and went to the factory where it was built   Bert

On Jul 19, 10:55 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:

They say in the clip it runs forever, and because of not knowing why
they don't know how or what the physics is behind it. I figured
it out, but I don't recommend it. One year of study is needed,
not like a chatting thing but it is on my web page at
www.geocities.com/gmbajszar/BreakPedalEffect.htm

My theory on my web page claims that using a small motor
to fill up the air tank and running a large motor on the compressed
air generates more power because of the weight differences,
swing effects of weight differ in my discovery.

Depends whose watching the clip. Think the simple mind of a
person. When they say: It is able to use the compressed air
to run a motor which in turn is able to compress the air back
and miraculously this seems to open a door for running a car
this way in a perpetual motion, then of course physicists will
doubt that, but it was in the clip, and we don't see perpetual
motion machines today, and we had many perpetual motion
machine inventions announced many years ago in the news
and still don't see them. They are very believable on TV.

The perpetual motion machine would still be using up the Sun's
energy. Without it things would freeze and not work. Some
4 kilowatts-h hydrogen energy can be produced from a liter of
water. This is enough to get the water back from the air humidity,
which costs 100-400 watts-h to produce in most places on Earth
(Not Sudan where there is 1-2 percent air humidity, 1 kilometer per
hour wind, no clouds) but generally where there is over 10 percent
humidity water can be made back and run the chemical processing
of water, obtain hydrogen, produce electricity or burn the hydrogen
in combustion. But what makes it possible is the fact that there
is humidity in the air and the fact that water is kept from freezing
and able to chemically react. So where is the law of conservation
problem if it works, partly because of the Sun's energy, partly
because of the available water. The dumb machine doesn't care,
it chemically processes water. I would call it perpetual motion
because one can sit it in the planes of Kansas and it runs based
on of course further steps to make it self sufficient, almost like
an artificial life form that upon not having sufficient water could
self propell itself to a place where there is more water in the air,
and it breethes not air under water like a fish but water in the air.

Let me explain two important concepts:  Possibility and feasibility.

Possiblity is whether something can be done.

Feasibility is whether something is worth doing.

Lord Kelvin is often quoted as saying that a heavier-than-air machine
capable of carrying a man was impossible.  What he in fact said was
that no known combination of materials and mechanisms could feasibly
lift a man into the air on a heavier-than-air craft.  If he was
present at Kittyhawk, in 1903, and someone confronted him about his
remark, he would point to the catapult assisted take-off and 200ft
flight and explain how it proved his point.  Heavier-than-air flight
was shown to be possible by the Wright brothers, but it was Bleriot
who showed it was feasible, when he flew across the English Channel.

Someone makes a flying toy airplane that is compressed air powered
(Airhogs), but it is very light and does not fly for long.  A massive
aircraft would need a large amount of compressed air to run its
engines for more than a few minutes, and that air has to be stored in
tanks that are some combination of really large and really heavy.
Compressed air ducted fans are possible, but past the really small
sizes, they are not particularily feasible.

I finally summoned the fortitude to watch the video to its most horrid
aspect-- running a compressor with a compressed air motor and
expecting to end up with at least as much compressed air as it started
with.  This is a clear violation of common sense.  If the turbine and
compressor are both absolutely without loss, the compressor would
still only be able to pump in as  much air as the turbine lets out.

The ram air turbines are a hoot.  The narration implies that the
energy driving them does not reduce the aircraft's speed, nor height,
when the drag would force a combination of both.

Still can't grasp the number lines fun I had huh DB?
you still think you have reason to just jump back over the zero
without physical cause.
LOL

And this one he still can't get that he has 2 answers for the square root of
4.
So which answer is it DB?
2 or -2?
You can't have both.
You need to pick one to know what side of the zero you are on.
LOL

True statement never proven false so far.

Maybe DB should read that link more and think about how
brainwashed he truly is.
LOL

Once again you are having problems with reading comprehension. Read
tadchen's second-last and last paragraphs. He talks about the lack of
basic physics in the technical curriculum, then goes on to say
"Unless, of course, you are one of those programmers paid by the
environmentalist special interest groups and the Socialist lobbies to
write "climate models" for global warming...".

R.G. Vickson

I have corrected he drawing for you...

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/4219/latestpm4bq6.jpg