Patrick Vessey wrote:
Stephen wrote:
This is a very strange statement.
Why would it self-run for "3 hours"? Why would it not run until the
bearings wore out? Why would an observer who was not satisfied in 3
hours have to remain unsatisfied (which is the implication here)?
I'm sorry, I know this sounds like a nit, but an apparently arbitrary
time limit like that makes it sound like either (a) the message wasn't
serious or (b) _something_ runs down after 3 hours in which case the
claim of self-running is not quite right.
[snip]
Again, I'm sorry to pick a nit this way, but if it uses a charged
capacitor to get it going, and if it stops after 3 hours (after which
the cap must be recharged?) it sounds like, well, there _is_ an outside
power source, after all.
[snip]
Again, the claim was that it would self-run for 3 hours, not indefinitely.
If that still
stands, it would make verifing his claims somewhat simpler...
Only if it self-runs indefinitely.
OK, I picked a poor msg to illustrate my point. Try this one:
---quote---
[snip]
Have you even seen my motor? Because your questions make no sense.
There is no flywheel at all.
What the hell is wrong with you.
I will start with one charged cap 25V 5000uF that's all! The device will
constantly produce far more than what the cap can store. We will light a 4
watt bulb for hours and hours. NO FLYWHEEL on earth that is started
using that cap could produce 4 watts. Hell if you want we will use a
drained cap and start EMILIE by hand to charge the cap. Then it will keep
running on it's own producing 4 watts or more!
Do you understand!
Yup, I understand. Either he's lying or it's the most revolutionary
thing anyone's ever seen, and it will set _everything_ on its head -- or
get him murdered, if the wrong people start to believe him too soon.
If anything, I'm _understating_ the significance of his claim.
Why's the capacitor there at all, I wonder? It couldn't light a 4 watt
bulb for 10 seconds, let alone "hours and hours" (however long that may
actually be -- once again, it seems like there's a hint that something
runs down after a while, which continues to seem odd to me: why is it
"hours and hours" and not "indefinitely" or "forever"?).
And if he's really got a working perpetual motion machine of the first
kind, why's he wasting his time arguing about it on the internet?
Surely there's some better way to apply it?
And why does he write in the future tense rather than the past tense?
Not a precise statement like "We have lit a 4 watt bulb for 17 hours"
but "We _will_ light a 4 watt bulb for hours and hours". Not "We have
started with a drained cap" but rather "We _will_ _use_ a drained
cap..." Very odd phrasing. Future tense, in English, at least, usually
means it hasn't been done yet, and may be used as an alternative to the
subjunctive, meaning it's a contrary-to-fact situation .... or it could
just be sloppy phrasing on his part, I suppose.
Oh, well, whatever -- I'm just a pathological skeptic when it comes to
perpetual motion of the first kind so I should recuse myself from all
future discussions of the Sprain motor.
