View Full Version : God's Set plan for Me
I believe that I will do something great one day, I am working on an invention which creates free-energy, I know that nobody in here knows about free energy because its way over your heads, so I'll stop. Either that, and he sent me to pis the world off.
Eddie_Perez
2003-08-03, 12:06 AM
He sent you to be a leader for gay rights.
No, you've got me confused with slaynish. And he sent you to lead your people out of mexico to freedom in the U.S.
Eddie_Perez
2003-08-03, 12:10 AM
Bah, we all know U.S. isn't gonna last long. Neways... I really dont care for your racial remarks... so, stop it.
Lol, sorry, you harassed me first. And yes, the U.S. isn't going to last long, korea is about to kill us all, and I'm going to buy a bomb shelter soon.
Eddie_Perez
2003-08-03, 12:14 AM
I say buy one in mexico, nobody's got beef with them! Except imported beef. :P
undeadzombieguy
2003-08-03, 03:18 AM
I believe that I will do something great one day, I am working on an invention which creates free-energy, I know that nobody in here knows about free energy because its way over your heads, so I'll stop. Either that, and he sent me to pis the world off.
well u already have almost succeeded in the second part :p
so u little Jeanne de Arc, how where u planning on making free energy, explain plz
God's Set plan for Me
Yeah your plan B.
Eddie_Perez
2003-08-03, 04:18 AM
And what is plan B?
Medieval Bob
2003-08-03, 08:27 AM
I believe that I will do something great one day, I am working on an invention which creates free-energy, I know that nobody in here knows about free energy because its way over your heads, so I'll stop. Either that, and he sent me to pis the world off.
Actually I worked on a perpetual motion device for a few weeks in Junior Physics. I'm going to have to believe that you weren't referring to a perpetual motion device, as you didn't know what it was called. Besides, other than the very, very theoretical, never-to-be-built perpetual motion device, there is no other "free energy." So stop trying to sound like a fucking genius D3V.
Fuck, if the U.S. gets invaded or something, I'm grabbing a rifle and just hiding out in an abandoned building and shooting every mother fucking invader I see until I'm shot.
Kuja`s #1
2003-08-03, 03:37 PM
Good luck.
uncapped
2003-08-03, 03:47 PM
I plan on becoming Lord Necros, lord of the underworld.
Actually I worked on a perpetual motion device for a few weeks in Junior Physics. I'm going to have to believe that you weren't referring to a perpetual motion device, as you didn't know what it was called. Besides, other than the very, very theoretical, never-to-be-built perpetual motion device, there is no other "free energy." So stop trying to sound like a fucking genius D3V.
Actually. Back then I had probably about 100 different sketches all involving different variances and magnetic pulls per each scale that I had drawn figuring something would finally have something that could perpetually spin itself upon a spindle, or some sort of pivot, but I never could get a sketch from paper into a model, on the scales that I had drawn.
jamer123
2008-11-13, 04:20 PM
talkin about this i have a engine design that runs totally off of the elements that go into water so in terms it produces no side efect to the enviroment its toatly clean will put piciture later
!King_Amazon!
2008-11-13, 04:30 PM
talkin about this i have a engine design that runs totally off of the elements that go into water so in terms it produces no side efect to the enviroment its toatly clean will put piciture later
I will shit myself if this "design" shows even a speck of intelligent or informed thought.
Kazilla
2008-11-13, 06:13 PM
talkin about this i have a engine design that runs totally off of the elements that go into water so in terms it produces no side efect to the enviroment its toatly clean will put piciture later
Quickly jot down the elements that make water jamer.
I learned about free energy from Dexter's Laboratory...
Actually. Back then I had probably about 100 different sketches all involving different variances and magnetic pulls per each scale that I had drawn figuring something would finally have something that could perpetually spin itself upon a spindle, or some sort of pivot, but I never could get a sketch from paper into a model, on the scales that I had drawn.
If something is spinning, there is friction involved which prevents the existence of a perpetual motion device.
If something is spinning, there is friction involved which prevents the existence of a perpetual motion device.
Not when the spinning is being pushed. Take a pinwheel shape that is perfectly round on the outer edges, place high powered magnets on them, place polarized ends oppositely all the way around it, each at a percision like angle, and watch the device spin amongst itself, the pinwell then turns into a turbine which spools a turbo like device and then creates PSI.
I've pretty much given up on a device, for now atleast, I figure we can harness the Earth's energy for now and make due.
-Spector-
2008-11-14, 01:28 AM
Quickly jot down the elements that make water jamer.
I'll help him:
2 atoms of hydrogen
1 atom of oxygen
Not when the spinning is being pushed. Take a pinwheel shape that is perfectly round on the outer edges, place high powered magnets on them, place polarized ends oppositely all the way around it, each at a percision like angle, and watch the device spin amongst itself, the pinwell then turns into a turbine which spools a turbo like device and then creates PSI.
I've pretty much given up on a device, for now atleast, I figure we can harness the Earth's energy for now and make due.
Don't you think someone would have done it by now?
That's my thinking. If it's really so simple and yet so complex, it would've been done by now.
!King_Amazon!
2008-11-14, 08:16 AM
The only way I could see coming close is to just convert the friction(heat(energy))) to a useable form to continue to power the device. Likely, you would have to have a long chain of "energy renewing" devices, and even then, you'd never reach full 100% efficiency.
That's the only reason why I dropped it, because as you say it would never be 100% efficieny which is the entire point. I really keep coming back to the argument that the only way to obtain free energy is to work towards harnessing our planet's energy in more than one fashion. Hmph.
-Spector-
2008-11-14, 09:05 AM
Is anything 100% efficient?
Nope. That's what you would need to create to actually have free energy.
Thanatos
2008-11-14, 11:04 AM
Looks like God's plan for you was a pretty bad one. God is such a fuck up.
Looks like God's plan for you was a pretty bad one. God is such a fuck up.
Fuckin' pud. Fuckin PUD, FUCKIN PUDS!
I believe that I will do something great one day, I am working on an invention which creates free-energy, I know that nobody in here knows about free energy because its way over your heads, so I'll stop. Either that, and he sent me to pis the world off.
wait what
Skurai
2009-11-04, 03:14 PM
I wonder what God made me for... :confused:
Even though the scientific laws we have now won't allow perpetual motion, doesn't mean it can't be achieved. Laws can always be rewritten
!King_Amazon!
2009-11-04, 07:09 PM
Yeah but not by Jamer.
Skurai
2009-11-04, 09:28 PM
Yeah but not by Jamer.
True enough! :eek:
Do humans count as perpetual motion, or does the fact we eat/sleep make us not?
If we aren't, then I really don't think there is a way...
True enough! :eek:
Do humans count as perpetual motion, or does the fact we eat/sleep make us not?
If we aren't, then I really don't think there is a way...
No we die. Perpetuation means forever. It's all about magnetical fields.
!King_Amazon!
2009-11-05, 10:29 AM
magnetical fields
Tell me more about these "magnetical" fields.
Under agreement, I cannot violate my gag order.
!King_Amazon!
2009-11-05, 11:29 AM
What a gag order might look like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Harness_gag_and_collar.jpg
Skurai
2009-11-05, 03:10 PM
Is that Sam!? :eek:
Hi Saaaaammm!! :grin:
I know her. ;)
Demosthenes
2009-11-06, 01:07 PM
Even though the scientific laws we have now won't allow perpetual motion, doesn't mean it can't be achieved. Laws can always be rewritten
Bull. The laws of the universe don't change on a whim, and can't be rewritten. You can argue that our understanding of those laws is incomplete, and you would certainly be correct in some cases. However, there are things that we have apodictic evidence for. Our understanding of those aren't going to be simply overturned.
The first and second laws of thermodynamics prevent a perpetual motion machine from being feasible. These laws specifically show that perpetual motion can not be achieved. If you think you know better, please publish it and win the Nobel.
So, without any explanation and any actual proof you automatically write it off because the laws say it is impossible? Or are you saying that laws cannot be rewritten? You saying either one is suprising given your extensive knowledge on it, but your imagination may be lacking.
I will present you this question: How would you go about operating outside of those laws?
Demosthenes
2009-11-06, 01:22 PM
So, without any explanation and any actual proof you automatically write it off because the laws say it is impossible?
Do you think those laws were based off the maniacal ejaculations of some buffoon? There is nearly 200 years of research backing those findings. If I laid out all of the evidence that has ever been gathered in support of those findings you would probably not be able to read it in the course of your natural life.
I will present you this question: How would you go about operating outside of those laws?
You can't.
Do you think those laws were based off the maniacal ejaculations of some buffoon? There is nearly 200 years of research backing those findings. If I laid out all of the evidence that has ever been gathered in support of those findings you would probably not be able to read it in the course of your natural life.
Obviously not. You would not be able to lay out all of the evidence that has been ever been gathered in your lifetime, so clearly that hypothetical situation would never even happen.
You can't.
That is not true, use some imagination and try again. Where would the laws of thermodynamics not be applied?
Demosthenes
2009-11-06, 01:27 PM
Obviously not. You would not be able to lay out all of the evidence that has been ever been gathered in your lifetime, so clearly that hypothetical situation would never even happen.
You missed the point of my post entirely, and responded with a nit-pick.
But in response to your nitpick, I could lay out enough evidence that you would not be able to read it through the course of your life. In fact, I would only have to go up three flights of steps for this to be done.
That is not true
Based on what?
use some imagination and try again. Where would the laws of thermodynamics not be applied?
Nowhere in the universe. Perhaps in the land of fairies and gods you can have your perpetual motion machine.
Based on what?
Based on not being able to prove a negative. Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it won't, or can't.
You are relying too much on the definition of what thermodynamics says cannot be done. You do not have to achieve 100% efficiency to have a machine that could possibly outlive our entire human race. This hypothetical machine would also not have to be friction-free given that more energy is created than being put in. It would only need to create enough efficiency to create more energy than is put in, not to become 100% effective and efficient.
Demosthenes
2009-11-06, 03:33 PM
Based on not being able to prove a negative.
You can't bend, fabricate, or in any other way bastardize the laws of the universe based on rather simplistic word games.
You are relying too much on the definition of what thermodynamics says cannot be done.
Right. I have a tendency to side with sound science.
You do not have to achieve 100% efficiency to have a machine that could possibly outlive our entire human race.
You're conflating two unrelated ideas. Are we talking about a perpetual motion machine or a machine that can outlive the human race? They are not the same.
This hypothetical machine would also not have to be friction-free given that more energy is created than being put in.
This is impossible.
It would only need to create enough efficiency to create more energy than is put in, not to become 100% effective and efficient.
You're asking it to be more than 100% efficient. You can't create energy. Again, this is impossible.
Skurai
2009-11-06, 04:24 PM
You can't bend, fabricate, or in any other way bastardize the laws of the universe based on rather simplistic word games.
Right. I have a tendency to side with sound science.
You're conflating two unrelated ideas. Are we talking about a perpetual motion machine or a machine that can outlive the human race? They are not the same.
This is impossible.
You're asking it to be more than 100% efficient. You can't create energy. Again, this is impossible.
Sounds like the usual responses to D3V's ideas.
Some Mormons gave me a card last night. Awkward...
Skurai
2009-11-07, 05:22 PM
You can't bend, fabricate, or in any other way bastardize the laws of the universe based on rather simplistic word games.
I disagree.
I've been doing it since I was born. Infact, I'll do it right now.
You are worthless, MJ. Without imagination your life is going to remain boring. Newton's law wasn't even correct the first time around, it had to be corrected by Einstein.
What good would it do to create an energy source that outlives the universe? Nothing, we need small-term, short term solutions as of right now, and creating a machine that would create more energy than is used. What you are trying to say that if this hypothetic machine doesn't outlive the universe then it isn't perpetual. You know as well as anybody that the Universe itself isn't going to last forever, it could all be gone instantly. So why do you bother dampering thought processes of this nature and creative ideas for the sole fact of being able to say you are right?
Instead of saying: "Energy cannot be created" why aren't you saying, "We haven't figured out how to create energy yet"?
Demosthenes
2009-11-09, 03:15 PM
You are worthless, MJ. Without imagination your life is going to remain boring. Newton's law wasn't even correct the first time around, it had to be corrected by Einstein.
What good would it do to create an energy source that outlives the universe? Nothing, we need small-term, short term solutions as of right now, and creating a machine that would create more energy than is used. What you are trying to say that if this hypothetic machine doesn't outlive the universe then it isn't perpetual. You know as well as anybody that the Universe itself isn't going to last forever, it could all be gone instantly. So why do you bother dampering thought processes of this nature and creative ideas for the sole fact of being able to say you are right?
Instead of saying: "Energy cannot be created" why aren't you saying, "We haven't figured out how to create energy yet"?
You're going to resort to ad hominem because I keep proving e-bitch-slapping your horrific logic? Nice.
If you're going to talk about perpetual motion and "free energy" pick up a fucking book and learn some terminology. Otherwise shut the fuck up about a subject you clearly know nothing about.
Nice dodge of the question, why are you so mad? I thought Indians were supposed to be nice people, or are the dots different than the feathers? I'm not even arguing the possibility of a device that could sustain maintainability forever, I know at our point in time in history that is impossible. What you are saying is that it will never be possible, where I am saying it is completely still possible.
If you're going to talk about perpetual motion and "free energy" pick up a fucking book and learn some terminology. Otherwise shut the fuck up about a subject you clearly know nothing about.
Can you give me a better word than perpetual that would better suit a machine that could run beyond the existance of our own human race? I never even said energy could be created. I said 'free energy' back in 2003, which was about the first time that I had ever even heard the term.
My whole original purpose was saying a machine could be created that would produce more energy than is used. The arguments you are making are out of the context of the actual idea based in this thread.
Demosthenes
2009-11-09, 04:29 PM
Nice dodge of the question, why are you so mad? I thought Indians were supposed to be nice people, or are the dots different than the feathers?
I see the racism still courses through your veins. Unfortunately, people don't change.
I'm not even arguing the possibility of a device that could sustain maintainability forever, I know at our point in time in history that is impossible. What you are saying is that it will never be possible, where I am saying it is completely still possible.
And what you are saying is blatantly incorrect.
Can you give me a better word than perpetual that would better suit a machine that could run beyond the existance of our own human race?
I don't know of a word. But a machine that can outlive the human race is not what a perpetual motion machine is. And perpetual motion is what you were originally talking about. If you don't know of a simple term to describe your idea, then describe your idea, don't simply substitute a completely different term for it.
I never even said energy could be created.
This hypothetical machine would also not have to be friction-free given that more energy is created than being put in.
My whole original purpose was saying a machine could be created that would produce more energy than is used.
why aren't you saying, "We haven't figured out how to create energy yet"?
Self-ownage for the win. Or are you too incompetent to realize that you've contradicted yourself multiple times?
Now, you want me to answer the question why I'm not saying "We haven't figured out how to create energy yet?" But in fact, I have answered it. Multiple times. But I'll do it yet again. It's because anyone who knows the first thing about physics knows that this is impossible. Not technologically impossible, based on what we have today. But impossible because universe does not permit it.
God, I love knowing that I get at you, D3V. It's fun watching you squirm. Pissing out school-girl insults while neg-repping me. Watching you change the entire subject of your thread just to defend your ill-conceived position. You're a tool. And I'm not talking about the kind of tool girls go crazy about. That would be too good for you. You're the annoying, loud, grating tool used for menial jobs at 8 AM in the morning. But actually, even they serve a purpose, so maybe I'm being too nice.
Anyway, I've said all that was there to be said. I'll come back next time I feel like banging my head against a ridiculously dense wall. I'm out.
!King_Amazon!
2009-11-09, 05:14 PM
D3v, you're wrong. Energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. Whatever you put into a system, you'll get back out, minus whatever you lose to friction and other unavoidable inefficiencies. You will never get out more than you put in, and it's currently not possible to retrieve ALL of the energy put into a system. There's always some loss, and even if you did find a way to create a "perfect" machine that had NO loss, you still wouldn't be creating energy or getting "free energy".
jamer123
2009-11-09, 05:56 PM
i think i know how to make a near perfect source for energy
Skurai
2009-11-09, 06:04 PM
There is one word that will fix all of D3V's arguements.
Paradox.
Create an energy Paradox, and you're fine.
If you create a machine that generates electricity more-so than it uses, would that not create 'free energy'?
I see the racism still courses through your veins. Unfortunately, people don't change.
And what you are saying is blatantly incorrect.
I don't know of a word. But a machine that can outlive the human race is not what a perpetual motion machine is. And perpetual motion is what you were originally talking about. If you don't know of a simple term to describe your idea, then describe your idea, don't simply substitute a completely different term for it.
Self-ownage for the win. Or are you too incompetent to realize that you've contradicted yourself multiple times?
Now, you want me to answer the question why I'm not saying "We haven't figured out how to create energy yet?" But in fact, I have answered it. Multiple times. But I'll do it yet again. It's because anyone who knows the first thing about physics knows that this is impossible. Not technologically impossible, based on what we have today. But impossible because universe does not permit it.
God, I love knowing that I get at you, D3V. It's fun watching you squirm. Pissing out school-girl insults while neg-repping me. Watching you change the entire subject of your thread just to defend your ill-conceived position. You're a tool. And I'm not talking about the kind of tool girls go crazy about. That would be too good for you. You're the annoying, loud, grating tool used for menial jobs at 8 AM in the morning. But actually, even they serve a purpose, so maybe I'm being too nice.
Anyway, I've said all that was there to be said. I'll come back next time I feel like banging my head against a ridiculously dense wall. I'm out.
Getting to me? I'm just throwing out ideas in a bullshit thread and you're writing a volume about how you've owned me. If I don't care, you don't own? Fun watching me squirm? You must be really bored, MJordan2nd. Why did you leave Zelaron again? Paranoid?
jamer123
2009-11-10, 09:54 AM
with my design it would involve the airless vacuum called space. .... a ring of coiled copper wire and a magnet with boosters to get the magnet going around the ring
/
the inside of the ring would look like this //---\\
.................................................. ...|-(0)-|
.................................................. ...\\---//
the magnet will be guided be magnetic rails inside the ring
(take note that the . are not apart of the design
I don't think anything currently being discussed would be possible, but still does not mean the possibility is not out there.
jamer123
2009-11-10, 10:02 AM
with this design there wouldnt be any wasted energy but electrical emergey gained
I hate to say it, but my thinking is similar to yours Jamer. I don't know why I think the way that I do, I don't even know why i'm so hard pressed to believe that anything like this could even work. I've honestly figured you could eliminate factors that would make it impossible such as friction and find a way to generate a small amount of electricity. Atleast with Magnets you aren't using energy, you are just using magnetical push and pull on the frame of a motor, while convertion the motion into electricity through the generator, which could then be placed wherever. The factors that could not be eliminated would only mean the machine would run at x% (75-80% due to drag) efficiency, and not 100% efficiency.
!King_Amazon!
2009-11-10, 12:50 PM
If you create a machine that generates electricity more-so than it uses, would that not create 'free energy'?
Yes. But like I stated, you can't create a machine that puts out more power than it takes in. It is by definition impossible, as energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The energy has to come from somewhere.
As long as you tell me that, I am still going to believe for the rest of my life that there is a loophole somewhere, and I can't explain why. I am aware that it sounds ignorant, but it's just what is stuck inside of my head.
!King_Amazon!
2009-11-10, 01:29 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
Read that. If you find a way around it, you've found your loophole. Good luck.
Skurai
2009-11-10, 09:19 PM
the inside of the ring would look like this //---\\
.................................................. ...|-(0)-|
.................................................. ...\\---//
Dude, that's called a cylinder. :weird:
I am confident that somebody already has, or will eventually design a machine using magnets in some form that will overpower it's resistance, hence churning a motor/gear setup with an electric generator that could eventually become a platform to build more complex, more elaborate machines that can generate tons of more power. That's the whole idea of this thread is not to contemplate something to power a house or vehicle, but just a small machine, a prototype model of this motor that would be able to transfer the motion from the magnets pulling the motor, and turn it into electricity.
I'm thinking electromagnetics is where it's at, just how is it done? AC.
I'll scan some of my designs sometime and put them on here, even if I get laughed out of here. My thinking is that if using a gear system on the generator, similar to a bicycle gearing system, could have movement generated from nothing at the highest gear (easiest to move, lowest resistance) once at a certain speed, and a current is generated a second set of magnets could turn on and gears would swap, hence creating more churn for the generator, which results in more electricity generated. No I do not know enough about this type of technology and no I cannot inform anybody in great detail, but my thought process figures a flywheel type setup could make this possible. And if not? Whatever, it's still fun to ponder.
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.