[quote]There you go. When science and logic won't work, you can always counterattack by calling someone a racist.[quote]


*** I am not calling the reviewer at the journal a racist per se I said he was prejudiced in the ways I described earlier. One of the occasions for displaying this prejudice is when one "contradicts their beliefs". Racism may only be a small part of the entire scenario.


[quote] Did you even once consider the possibility that your ideas are without scientific merit?[/quote]

*** Actually I did consider that alternative and even asked one professor to be straight with me and tell me plainly if he thought it to be nonsense but his response when he read the work was that he was baffled as to whether it was the work of a lunatic, a genius or if it was by divine inspiration.

This professor, the professors at the physics dept at the university, and the reviewer all commented that it was confusing and self contradictory but their claims of contradictions were all refuted.

The journal required that experiments should be proposed in the paper that will allow the theories to be tested. They also deemed it as science fiction and like the others required mathematical proof.

I was hoping for some closure after those reviews even to be able to say that the work was unsound and to be shown where I was in error. All the reviews seemed to do however was to prove that the theories were irrefutable and the lack of closure has indeed left me restless: I cannot put it aside and move on to other things in life. I have also become arrogant which thing I make sure not to allow to rear its ugly head any more.

I have however taken advice from the reviews and that is why I am now proposing experiments like that of the infinite energy device which is one thing that will support the theories. Gravitators also do in the sense that it is a gravity device and my theories are based on explaining gravity.

I also recently decided that I will rewrite the paper or parts of it in mathematical language because the reviewer was Fernch Canadian I suppose and so English might not have been his first language. He therefore had difficulty reading the text as many non English scientist would. It therefore makes sense to write in a more universal language.

Ok, I think that that is enough of my story so maybe now we can get back to the task of discussing issues in science and myths that can be looked into by this site.

Roger

quote:

This professor, the professors at the physics dept at the university, and the reviewer all commented that it was confusing and self contradictory but their claims of contradictions were all refuted.

Well, maybe my little brain is just too puny to understand what you are trying to say. I really don't consider myself all that smart.

But, I think that I will stick with the conventional view, for now.

Nothing that you have obfuscated, so far, makes sense to me.

Unless you provide some kind of real evidence, I am going to just remain of the opinion that you are just delusional.

Sorry.

quote:

Unless you provide some kind of real evidence, I am going to just remain of the opinion that you are just delusional.

Everyone's delusional in their own sense.

quote:

Everyone's delusional in their own sense.

That's what delusional people always think.

profroger:
In reference to your experience with the paddle wheel with conductive paddles, next to a vandergraaf generator. Do you have any proof or an idea of the efficiency of this "generator?"

Obviously the paddle wheel can turn a generator and make some current, but I feel that the energy produced will be less than the energy required to keep the vandergraaf unit charged.

The efficiency of this device, if it even works, will be less than 100% so exactly why would this unit be built?

If I remember correctly van de graf generators use a belt and some metal brushes. All you would need is too adjust the gear ratios for the desired speed/torque levels.

quote:

Well, maybe my little brain is just too puny to understand what you are trying to say. I really don't consider myself all that smart.

But, I think that I will stick with the conventional view, for now.

*** Fair enough but there are ay least two types of audience I have to deal with. The scientific community which is expected to be able to determine whether my theories are correct or not regardless of popular views and the general public that go with the popular view.

I can understand you going with the popular view but not the professors. Incidentally, much of the simpler things I propose on this site were not written in the paper presented for review: the book is purely abstract thought for theoretical scientists but in my opinion it is close to 100% correct.

I don't recommend it for general reading and so said the reviewer at the journal also, he said it was not suited for the journal because the average reader cannot relate to the things written.

quote:

Unless you provide some kind of real evidence, Iam going to just remain of the opinion that you are just delusional.

*** And if I do provide real evidence what will you then think of yourself for having thought me to be delusional???

Roger

quote:

*** And if I do provide real evidence what will you then think of yourself for having thought me to be delusional???

Go for it!

Einstein's claims initially seemed pretty incredible, but he was able to back it up.

So, go ahead, but I am not going to hold my breath waiting for it.

quote:

profroger:
In reference to your experience with the paddle wheel with conductive paddles, next to a vandergraaf generator. Do you have any proof or an idea of the efficiency of this "generator?"

*** Like I said before the device will produce infinite energy theoretically. As long as the sphere remains charged the device will work and the work it does does not consume (ie run down) the charge on the sphere. The sphere will loose charge naturally and this can be minimized by insulating in and housing it a vacuum etc.

Whatever the insulation provided however, unless you practically earth the sphere or keep it in an atmosphere loaded with moisture, by the time it discharges the work output provided will be many times the energy used in charging the device.

It is therefore an above unity device and I estimate that a practical well insulated device will easily give of the order of 1000's of percents 'efficiency'.

quote:

Obviously the paddle wheel can turn a generator and make some current, but I feel that the energy produced will be less than the energy required to keep the vandergraaf unit charged.

*** In a practical device both the sphere and the wheel will be positively charged and isolated from the environment by an insulated vacuum chamber. There will be no need to keep it connected to the vandergraff generator: it will retain its own charge.

quote:

The efficiency of this device, if it even works, will be less than 100% so exactly why would this unit be built?

*** Like I said it will be more that 1000%. Further the power will be tremendous: I estimate a 225 Kg device charged to 200,000 Volts will be able to power a standard car carrying 5 occupants to attain a speed of 160 km/h in 100 meters.

And powering cars is only one benefit: for those who believe in space travel we are talking about finite mass of fuel producing literally infinite work so long and distant space trips will be now practical although the propulsion method needed must also be a ground breaking one.

The new look for the message boards is great!!!

Roger

quote:

If I remember correctly van de graf generators use a belt and some metal brushes. All you would need is too adjust the gear ratios for the desired speed/torque levels.

*** Ahhh! This just made me think of something that might be confusing about the above unity device. The energy output is infinite but the 'power' will be less than that of the source: so the power required to charge the sphere will be greater than the 'power' that can be derived from the spinning wheel.

It therefore comes like charging by induction: you can use a charged object to charge by induction practically any number of other objects but the charge on successive objects is always less than that of the parent charge.

To reiterate, the energy or work output of the device tends to infinity but the rate of work capacity or power of the device is less than what is input into the device.

Roger

quote:

So, go ahead, but I am not going to hold my breath waiting for it.

*** No please don't hold your breath because I do not know how long till I am proven right but I just don't want you to feel like kicking yourself having been proven to have held a wrong opinion about me.

Roger

quote:

*** No please don't hold your breath because I do not know how long till I am proven right but I just don't want you to feel like kicking yourself having been proven to have held a wrong opinion about me.

Points for optimism, but I am still of the opinion that you are just deluding yourself.

I have quite a few failed proof-of-concept experiments to keep me from deluding myself when I think of building something, but there are enough successes to keep me at it.

quote:

but there are enough successes to keep me at it.

*** Well tell us of the success stories.

I have gotten two similarly charged conducting spheres to attract and remain stuck to each other for about 75 seconds after the charging voltage was switched off. That however did not serve to convince the critics.

Unlike you I have had enough opposition to success stories to keep me from trying to convince those who seem to have everything to loose by those stories.

Roger

You do realize that to shield something from an electric field you have to completely surround it by a conducting material connected to earth - such a thing is known as a 'Faraday Cage'.

quote:

You do realize that

*** I wonder who is the 'you' this post is referring to and what is it in response to.

Roger

quote:

Originally posted by profroger:

quote:

You do realize that

*** I wonder who is the 'you' this post is referring to and what is it in response to.

Roger

I thought this discussion was about a device that was supposed to work by shielding part of a wheel from the electrostatic attraction of a highly-charged object so that it would rotate because the exposed parts, vanes or paddles on one side still were attracted. So I was referring to whoever was putting this idea forward. If I misunderstood the idea, apologies.

My point was that an electric field, which is the way we describe the way the force experienced by electrically charged particles varies in magnitude and direction in different locations in space, is not something which can be blocked in the same way as radiation, such as light.

To extract continuous rotational energy from a non-changing electric or magnetic field would violate Maxwell's laws of electro-magnetism, as well as the First Law of Thermodynamics. These are really well-tested laws of physics, and a scientist who who could demonstrate convincingly a flaw in them would be almost guaranteed a Nobel Prize.

Here's one success (I won't go into much detail, stuff posted here becomes the property of Discovery Networks): I can recover virtually ALL the energy of waste heat from the charging of batteries and operation of a small generator and invertor and put it back into the system to produce work. This means I can convert mechanical work into electricity with insane efficiency. NO, not more than 100% efficiency, so you free energy nutjobs can sit back down now.

quote:

I thought this discussion was about a device that was supposed to work by shielding part of a wheel from the electrostatic attraction of a highly-charged object...

*** Ok I uderstand you now. This is in fact where the original topic of this thread has reached.

So you said that in order to shield you need an earthed conductor and I agree that that might be one way but you need not 'completely' surround it in this case because you don't want all of the field blocked off.

If you wish to try the experiment but you find the metal shield cannot work it may be because a dense metal is not effective in this case since in my view it will tend to transmit the field even though it is earthed.

What I had in mind as the shield is a porous covalent/ non conducting material: I am thinking of ceramic material similar to what is used for spacing high tension electrical wires of electricity supply lines.

The theory is that if particles of the material are packed too close the field will transmit but the spaces between particles cause or assist in breakdown of the field inside the material of the shield.

A porous non conducting material should therefore be suitable for blocking out part of the field.

quote:

My point was that an electric field, which is the way we describe the way the force experienced by electrically charged particles varies in magnitude and direction in different locations in space, is not something which can be blocked in the same way as radiation, such as light.

*** You are right in that electrostatic field is not radiation and your concept that it is 'the way force is experienced' is good enough for experiment purposes.

quote:

To extract continuous rotational energy from a non-changing electric or magnetic field would violate Maxwell's laws of electro-magnetism,...

*** As far as I recall those laws deal with electricity ie current generated by moving conductors in magnetic fields etc so no need to fear violation of those laws, they are sound laws but they do not deal with static electricity which is what we are dealing with in this experiment.

quote:

... as well as the First Law of Thermodynamics.

*** If I recall correctly that law says that the energy of a closed system is constant. We are in fact dealing with a closed system with our apparatus but two things must be understood:

(i) Those laws deal with ke, pe and internal energy and nuclear energy as far as I recall. Even if you are talking of currents you are talking about ke of moving electrons and internal energy of heating. But they do not cover the energy of fields.

I ask: what is the capacity of an electrostatic/ gravity field? Like I explained elsewhere and any critical thinker in math or physics should be able to verify the earth's gravity field does work in keeping our moon in orbit yet for all the eons that they have been together the gravity field has not diminished from the tremendous amount of work it does against the accelerating mass of the moon for every meter the moon moves.

(ii) No consideration is given to the fact that the capacity of any electrostatic/ gravity field is infinity. So in our experiment the infinite energy we get from the device is consistent with the infinite capacity of the electrostatic field in our closed system for work.


{quote] These are really well-tested laws of physics, and a scientist who who could demonstrate convincingly a flaw in them would be almost guaranteed a Nobel Prize.[/quote]

*** I agree with that physics too it is solid but I am saying it is not all that there is. So if by flaw you mean that I have to find something wrong with those laws to earn a Prize then I guess I am out of luck. But if by flaw you mean shortcoming of the law in not extending courtesy to the infinite which exists then the Prize is mine/ ours because the capacity of the energy field/ substance from which matter is made is infinite.

Roger

quote:

This means I can convert mechanical work into electricity with insane efficiency. NO, not more than 100% efficiency, so you free energy nutjobs can sit back down now.

*** Achieving 100% efficiency is the limit set for those that do not fully understand physics, those that cannot think outside the limits that their school education has set.

Roger