YES, mechanical perpetual motion generator based on the Corioliseffect is going to work (JP)

There is also another thread that I just started.

You blew your credibility by jazzing up the thread with "corioli
effect."


Bret Cahill

On Mar 18, 5:14*am, oriel36 wrote:

Considering that there is a new orbital component to look at,why
bother remaining with a useless framework which prevents any
productive work from being done.

That would be a good point, but of course, those who have failed to
appreciate your insights feel the framework they work with is quite
suitable to productive work - and their ability to calculate the paths
of space probes and so on seems to confirm them in that belief.

John Savard

On Mar 31, 9:23*am, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
Bret Cahill wrote:
The Foucault pendulum would do the same thing.

No it would't. *A Foucault pendulum does not extract any
energy from the earth's rotation. *To understand why,
imagine one at one of the poles. *Now imagine stopping
the earth's rotation. *From a reference frame "fixed in
space" (a point where the starfield no longer appears
to rotate is close enough), the motion of the Foucault
pendulum does not change at all, and thus is unaffected
by the earth's rotation, neither gaining energy from it
or losing energy to it.

But the Foucault pendulum might be something we could stand on to
extract energy not from the pendulum, but from that rotating Earth.
Then again, it might not - one would need at least a good gyroscope,
and remember that it will try to go in a perpendicular direction...

John Savard

On Apr 10, 10:04*am, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

I believe that humans tend to crunch rather than splat.

That was a level of detail I was not concerned with. I think I'll
stick to changing the rules of Chess.

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote:

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:

The Foucault pendulum would do the same thing.

No it wouldn't. A Foucault pendulum does not extract any
energy from the earth's rotation. To understand why,
imagine one at one of the poles. Now imagine stopping
the earth's rotation. From a reference frame "fixed in
space" (a point where the starfield no longer appears
to rotate is close enough), the motion of the Foucault
pendulum does not change at all, and thus is unaffected
by the earth's rotation, neither gaining energy from it
or losing energy to it.

But the Foucault pendulum might be something we could stand on to
extract energy not from the pendulum, but from that rotating Earth.
Then again, it might not - one would need at least a good gyroscope,
and remember that it will try to go in a perpendicular direction...

As I understand the physics, Zero energy can be extracted from the
rotating Earth by standing on a Foucault pendulum. Consider a
pendulum suspended above the north pole with a swing that is
aligned to the star field. Now stop the earth from rotating.
Does doing that change the swing on the pendulum? Now re-start
the earth and start extracting energy from the once-per-24-hours
apparent motion. Soon you will run out of the kinetic energy
contained in the inertial mass of the pendulum and it will have
a swing aligned with the earth. Replace the pendulum with a
gyroscope and the same argument applies. You can only get back
the energy you used to start the pendulum swinging or the gyroscope
spinning.

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Butttt! There is a perpetual motion machine. Its called taxing the poor.
The Governor of Iowa!



NoEinstein wrote:

On Feb 27, 11:50 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
wrote:
Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
one.

Many people build what the think or claim are perpetual motion
machines. Some of the builders fool themselves... but most just
try to fool others for glory or profit.

Mother nature cannot be fooled... It doesn't take that much
education to understand why.

Dear Sam: I agree 100%! (That's so rare for us!) If by "Coriolis"
you refer to the forces that cause storms to rotate differently in the
N. and the S. hemisphere, any energy advantage results from SOLAR
energy differentials which cause the winds (or the water draining from
a bathtub) to rotate in the first place. So this could never be a
perpetual motion machine, because it has outside energy input.
When I was in grammar school, one of my first "attempts" at doing
science was to design what I thought was a perpetual motion machine.
I hadn't heard of a thing called... friction, however. An uncle
explained that friction would kill my idea. That "prize" is going to
be safe for a long, long time! -- NoEinstein --

You have to apply or extract the torque in a way that wouldn't change
the magnitude of the angular momentum of the system. During most of
the swing a Foucault Pendulum has some angular momentum just like a
gyro.

The gyro idea is nonsense from a practical point of view. 1 rev/day
torque would be in the billions of N-m for even a few kilowatts not to
mention the frictional losses from such a huge disks spinning in air
or maintaining a vacuum.

I brought up the Foucault Pendulum because it's the only idea I could
think of sillier than a gyro.


Bret Cahill



The Foucault pendulum would do the same thing.

No it wouldn't. A Foucault pendulum does not extract any
energy from the earth's rotation. To understand why,
imagine one at one of the poles. Now imagine stopping
the earth's rotation. From a reference frame "fixed in
space" (a point where the starfield no longer appears
to rotate is close enough), the motion of the Foucault
pendulum does not change at all, and thus is unaffected
by the earth's rotation, neither gaining energy from it
or losing energy to it.

But the Foucault pendulum might be something we could stand on to
extract energy not from the pendulum, but from that rotating Earth.
Then again, it might not - one would need at least a good gyroscope,
and remember that it will try to go in a perpendicular direction...

As I understand the physics, Zero energy can be extracted from the
rotating Earth by standing on a Foucault pendulum. Consider a
pendulum suspended above the north pole with a swing that is
aligned to the star field. Now stop the earth from rotating.
Does doing that change the swing on the pendulum? Now re-start
the earth and start extracting energy from the once-per-24-hours
apparent motion. Soon you will run out of the kinetic energy
contained in the inertial mass of the pendulum and it will have
a swing aligned with the earth. Replace the pendulum with a
gyroscope and the same argument applies. You can only get back
the energy you used to start the pendulum swinging or the gyroscope
spinning.

In alt.energy.renewable Bret Cahill wrote:
So get to work and build it. Talk is cheap.

Who provides funding?

Anyone you can convince it's a good idea.

Exactly. If it were a good idea, a little sketch would attract funding.

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel

So get to work and build it. Talk is cheap.

Who provides funding?

Anyone you can convince it's a good idea.

Exactly. �If it were a good idea,

The torque of a 1 rev/day 1 hp power plant would be:

1 rev/ 6.28 rad X 1 day/revolution X 24hrs/day X 3600sec/hr x 550 ft-
lbs/sec = 8 million ft lbs.

a little sketch would attract funding.

Calling it the "corioli effect" destroyed his credibility.


Bret Cahill