 |
Vinyasi .
<SNIP>
|
|
[OT] Why did I buy my RAV4 EV 2002 second hand
but in otherwise mint condition? |
|
Vinyasi |
Fri,
Jan 20, 2017 at 1:36 AM
|
|
To:
Earl C
Cc: RAV4 EV Mailing
List |
|
“This
is a perpetual motion machine” and thus we should ignore this
idea and the person promoting it since it can't possibly operate as
he/she predicts and he/she is not reputable since no professional
would make such a claim had he/she bothered to take college level
courses and passed their elementary exams.
Good
point. Which machine are you referring to?
The
Two-Stage Oscillator of Veljko Milković is not a
mechanical self-runner in that it still requires the input of a
well-timed push upon its weighted pendulum, or else the assistance of
electromechanical devices (generators, motors, etc) placed as
intermediate steps within the context of its purely mechanical two
stages of oscillation in order to continue to oscillate. Thus,
perpetuity is not possible with this mechanical example. And if the
device is not properly tuned, parasitic beat frequencies arise
canceling its magnified output and thus killing its overunity
coefficient of performance.
When tuned properly,
the oscillations of both systems act together to produce “harmonic
reenforcement” of the energy stored in the combined oscillatory
system, and very large force amplifications are possible. When left
untuned, or improperly tuned, the oscillations of the two systems
cause “beat frequencies” against one another, and the
force amplification is dissipated in “parasitic oscillations.”
Therefore, the machine can only function as a Mechanical Amplifier
when it is built well AND tuned properly.
The
Earth Captor of Barbosa and Leal is
also not a perpetual motion machine in that it is dependent on an
Earth-based series of grounding rods. And like most machines of this
type: it is not a self-starter nor is it auto-adaptive – if the
Earth between the two sets of grounding rods should lack a strong
geomagnetism, or become sogged with water from a rainstorm, then the
electrical output of this device drops dramatically requiring more
grounding rods among the larger of the two sets leading directly to
the Electric Keeper...
In
this electrical example,
some of the output is fed back to a battery charger to recharge the
battery that runs the circuit which drives the Electric Keeper which
collects additional input from the Earth network of grounding rods
whose contribution is of an indeterminate limit (no one knows,
precisely, how much contribution from the Earth is possible). But if
Clarence's undisclosed photovoltaic alternative to this Earth-based
electrical system is substituted in place of the grounding rods, then
geomagnetism and remaining in a fixed location no longer apply.
Hence, adaption to an EV is possible, although not practical –
yet. This PV alternative is fed by a single light bulb; not by
external light.
Now,
after looking at the situation, I can see your point of view becoming
more self-evident: the mechanical two-stage oscillator of Veljko
Milković is self-contained and not surprisingly is not a
self-runner (not a perpetual motion machine). And the Earth Captor of
Barbosa and Leal is not self-contained, but must be tied to a system
of two sets of grounding rods making this not a perpetual motion
machine since the Earth is contributing a potential difference
between the two sets of grounding rods. Only time will tell how
Clarence's photovoltaic alternative to Barbosa and Leal manages to be
a self-runner since he's not publicizing his schematic; he's only
publicizing his initial
test results.
So,
the important question to ask is: is any device an energy amplifying
system? And, where does it get its amplification from? Hence,
perpetual motion – as a concept – is an impediment to
understanding since perpetuity ignores exterior contributions of
energy.
The
only important questions for us to consider is: does it work? And, is
it practical? And, will somebody else please build it for me? This
latter is a contradiction to prevailing social standards of the
economic model of corporate behavior. Anything not requiring too much
regular maintenance checks from authorized dealers under warranty,
nor replacement due to quick wear-out or boredom from jaded consumers
requiring a new model every year to replace the last one which still
runs perfectly well, does not fit the economic model of today's
society. But you already know this.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Earl C wrote:
Vinyasi,
Cool animation, however, its a perpetual motion machine.
All the energy imparted to the hammer must first be imparted to the pendulum. The pendulum will lose speed (energy) when the arm it hangs from comes down as it passes bottom dead center. That energy will have to be replace by pushing on the pendulum again.
The only thing this might enable would be you could get a lot of energy out of the hammer if you locked it in the down position, then added a little energy to the pendulum on each swing to get it swinging very high. You could then release the lock on the hammer, the pendulum would pick the hammer up the next time it swung down and the hammer would strike as the pendulum reached the top of its swing. There may be a few progressively lighter taps of the hammer as the pendulum slows down gradually.
The total energy of the hammer would still be no more than the little pushes to the pendulum added up.
TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)
-----------------------------------------
From: "Vinyasi ."
To: "RAV4 EV Mailing List"
Cc:
Sent: 18-Jan-2017 22:26:30 +0000
Subject: Re: [RAV4-EV] [OT] Why did I buy my RAV4 EV 2002 second hand but in otherwise mint condition?
I knew it was incomplete when I wrote it yesterday, but I was too tired to finish. So, this morning I added this to try and make the basic idea a little more accessible to the majority point of view.
------------------------
To more fully explain this principle of operating an overunity electrical device on oscillating amperage, we must bring in a mechanical example resulting from the work of Veljko Milković.
|
Vinyasi |
Thu,
Jan 19, 2017 at 3:13 PM
|
|
|
To:
David Miller
Cc:
RAV4 EV Mailing List <...@evchargernews.com>
|
||
|
Vinyasi |
Thu,
Jan 19, 2017 at 2:03 PM
|
|
To:
David Miller
Cc: RAV4 EV Mailing
List |
|
--------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================
---------------------------------------------------------
On
Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:21 PM, David Miller wrote:
Autodidacts have difficulty ascertaining when they are wrong.
Every patent of this sort is rejected without scrutiny because they are absurd.
Over the last 100 years, thousands of attempts of this sort have served only
to identify people working beyond their limits.
Try to understand a simple spring first. Enroll in a 1st semester college physics class and
you will, at least I hope, begin to use words like "free energy" without confusing it with
force, momentum or impulse.
I can't be nice about this because you haven't done your homework.
-David Miller
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [OT] Why did I buy my RAV4 EV 2002 second hand but in otherwise mint condition?
Local Time: January 19, 2017 12:46 PM
UTC Time: January 19, 2017 8:46 PM
|
Vinyasi |
Thu,
Jan 19, 2017 at 12:46 PM
|
|
To:
David
Miller
Cc: RAV4 EV Mailing
List |
|
Einstein
is no Steinmetz. The former never had to deal with what the latter
could readily tackle: troubleshooting Edison's parasitic
transients affecting his ability to deliver DC power to his
customers.
A
more germane question is: can Einstein handle parasitic
transients: explain them, and put them to good use?
Perpetual
motion machines is definitely off topic since it has no relevance to
parasitic transients oscillating within a transmission line, nor
within the Electric Keeper of Barbosa and Leal's Earth Captor.
Throwing
something out does not validate the same degree of intelligence as
does integration. It's easy to reject dumb inventions. But how
difficult is it to profit from challenges? An oscillating current is
definitely a challenge, but not unworthy of investigation.
Of
course, oscillating currents are not equivalent to either AC or DC
despite their being born of either one.
-------------------------------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:35:57 -0500
From: David Miller
To: ...@evchargernews.com
Subject: Re: [RAV4-EV] RAV4-EV Digest, Vol 172, Issue 7
From: David Miller
To: ...@evchargernews.com
Subject: Re: [RAV4-EV] RAV4-EV Digest, Vol 172, Issue 7
Albert
Einstein spent all his patent office time rejecting
perpetual motion machines just like this.
perpetual motion machines just like this.
|
Vinyasi |
Thu,
Jan 19, 2017 at 12:33 PM
|
|
To: Arthur Keller |
|
I
disagree. The content is not Off Topic since it's very difficult for
people to understand parasitic transients without recourse to simple
analogies from mechanical dynamics.
What
is a parasitic transient oscillating within a transmission line and
why should it not always be discarded as either a nuisance or as a
"speculative energy sources" presumed to be not
relevant to EVs? It is just such a misunderstanding and
under-appreciation of this topic that I feel preserves our doubt that
having a self-charging EV is not a possibility worthy of my two-cents
worth to state the facts to the contrary. This is not idle
speculation. This is taking responsibility for the short-comings of
pursuing a non-populist opinion by taking charge of its
misunderstanding.
I
apologize if I tax your patience with my thoroughness.
But
if you don't want me to contribute, then so be it. I won't.
This
is too relevant to keep private.
On
Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Arthur Keller wrote:
|
Arthur
Keller <arthur@kellers.org> |
Thu,
Jan 19, 2017 at 12:21 PM
|
|
To:
"Vinyasi”
Cc: Earl C,
"rav4-ev@evchargernews.com" |
|
The
subject of this string of messages was labelled “[OT] Why did I
buy my RAV4 EV 2002 second hand but in otherwise mint condition?”
That topic in not OT. But the content of the message *is*
OT, about speculative energy sources.
It
is clear that this string of messages has veered off into a topic not
even tangentially related to EVs. So please take this
discussion off this list.
Best
regards,
Arthur
On Jan 19, 2017, at 12:12 PM, Vinyasi . <vinyaasi@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Vinyasi |
Thu,
Jan 19, 2017 at 12:12 PM
|
|
To:
Earl C
Cc: RAV4 EV Mailing
List <...@evchargernews.com> |
|
I'll
agree with you since it's irrelevant to daisy-chained multiplicity of
oscillations.
The
tell tale sign is that the hammer won't lift right away. It has to
wait until the oscillations build up to an amplitude large enough to
move the hammer. From that point forward, the hammer will move up and
down with a force not equal to the force applied to the pendulum.
The
hammer is doing all the work and suffering all of the losses. Not so
with the pendulum. It's only losses are from air drag and the
minimalist friction at its hanging point. In fact, we can bolt the
hammer to a fixed condition without any impact upon the ability of
the pendulum to swing with each well timed push in the right
direction.
Despite
any error on my part to think that acceleration of gravity has any
relevance to this discussion, the important fact is that reaction
against the hammer is not allowed to affect the pendulum. Thus, in
this simple two stage oscillator, reaction does not fully equate to
action within the context of the entire throughput. The pendulum's
reactions to every push applied to it certainly affects the hammer at
some point (but not right away), but the same cannot be said of the
hammer: the hammer's reactions to gravity do not affect the
pendulum's swings at all. This break in the continuity between
reaction and action - from which the Law of Conservation of Motion is
intimately connected - violates our obsession with applying this law
to every circumstance regardless of relevance. This law always
applies to singular closed systems; not to multiple open systems
transferring energy to each other in a non-bidirectional fashion.
Within the limited domain of each oscillator, reaction has to equal
action. But outside of each and between them both, their
interrelationship is not unlike that of an irreversible chemical
reaction. This is where reaction is not allowed to affect action and
conservation does not apply.
I
believe we risk discarding something which our imperialistic
consciousness highly values: control, if we should accept the
inherent limitation of applying this law to each circumstance.
Parasitic transients in electrical transmission lines are a fact of
life: their lack of response to our control violates our sense of
rigor. Only by their suppression do we achieve control over them,
because they refuse to acknowledge our cherished Law of Conservation.
They are a law unto themselves. We can either reject their
coexistence with us, or else learn to live with them in a manner that
won't entirely defeat us so that we may benefit from the
relationship.
On
Jan 19, 2017 8:12 AM, Earl C wrote:
Vinyasi,
I only take the time to try to help one proponent of a perpetual motion scheme each year. Its now 2017 so you're it for this year. I've made a careful attempt to point out the problem with your scheme. I'll make one more comment.
You're confusing force and acceleration with energy. It's a common point people miss.
Energy is force applied over a distance (E = F X D). The energy you'll apply to lift the hammer's head will be the same whether it comes from force applied to pushing the pendulum through part of it's arc several times or whether it comes from just pushing down on the hammer's tail or pushing up on the hammer's head. The only thing that may be different from these 3 approaches is that some may require less force but over longer distance applied.
I recommend you make a real version of this and try it instead of just an animation.
Best Regards,
Earl
I only take the time to try to help one proponent of a perpetual motion scheme each year. Its now 2017 so you're it for this year. I've made a careful attempt to point out the problem with your scheme. I'll make one more comment.
You're confusing force and acceleration with energy. It's a common point people miss.
Energy is force applied over a distance (E = F X D). The energy you'll apply to lift the hammer's head will be the same whether it comes from force applied to pushing the pendulum through part of it's arc several times or whether it comes from just pushing down on the hammer's tail or pushing up on the hammer's head. The only thing that may be different from these 3 approaches is that some may require less force but over longer distance applied.
I recommend you make a real version of this and try it instead of just an animation.
Best Regards,
Earl
-----------------------------------------
From:
"Vinyasi ."
To: "Earl C"
Cc: "RAV4 EV Mailing List"
Sent: 19-Jan-2017 05:43:52 +0000
To: "Earl C"
Cc: "RAV4 EV Mailing List"
Sent: 19-Jan-2017 05:43:52 +0000
We
have four different forces at work here and they're not all equal...
- The force of one's little finger periodically applied at the right moment of the pendulum's upswing and in the right direction to enhance its upward motion.
- The accumulating force of the ever increasing arc of the swinging pendulum.
- Acceleration, due to gravity, of the pendulum reaching maximum thrust at the bottom of its swing. This momentary acceleration of the pendulum eventually becomes large enough to lower the tail end of the hammer and raise its head. Upon the pendulum's deceleration as it rises upwards, the tail end of the hammer rises thus ...
- Allowing the hammer's head to fall and strike the anvil beneath it using the accelerative force of gravity.
|
Vinyasi . <SNIP> |
Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:39 PM
|
|
|
To: Earl C <SNIP>
Cc: RAV4 EV Mailing
List <...@evchargernews.com>
|
||
No comments:
Post a Comment