[rollei_list] Re: OT - Patent No. 6,362,718 B1 (was: Cost of LF ...)
- From: Don Williams <dwilli10@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:23:58 -0700
At 11:47 AM 4/22/2005, you wrote:
>On Friday, April 22, 2005, at 01:25 PM, David Seifert wrote:
>
> > Ardeshir,
> >
> > What, exactly, do you mean by the term "perpetual motion"? The classic
> > defintion is something that is capable of moving against gravity
> > indefinitely with no apparent influx of energy.
> >
> > Let us use, as an analogy, planetary motion. The moon orbiting the
> > earth, for example. According to your assertion, this would be an
> > example of perpetual motion. The moon is actually falling toward the
> > earth due to gravitational forces but it's speed is high enough to
> > keep it balanced in orbit. Gravity is NOT perptual motion.
> >
> > An electron "orbiting" a nucleus is a quantum mechanical effect which
> > by definition has nothing to do with nor is it affected by gravity.
> > Therefore it is not perptual motion according to the classical
> > defintion.
> >
> > David
>
>I agree with that, David. I was not talking about gravity as such, nor
>about the classical definition of "perpetual motion".
>
>What I was talking about is MAGNETISM. There is no such thing as an
>elementary particle possessing PURE magnetism, is there - the way there
>are elementary particles, such as electrons, possessing a PURE
>electrical charge, a charge which does NOT change whether the particle
>moves or not. The way we understand magnetism to manifest itself - and
>correct me if I am wrong - is due to the MOTION of charged elementary
>particles, mostly electrons (more accurately, due to the ACCELERATION
>of charged elementary particles, mostly electrons). The very fact that
>permanent magnets exist, therefore, proves that charged elementary
>particles (i.e., electrons) within the magnet are permanently in MOTION!
>
>Not only that, but there is no way to STOP the motion of electrons in
>each atom, and thereby remove the magnetic field. The ONLY way we know
>of to "remove" a magnetic field is to CANCEL OUT the various magnetic
>fields produced by the electrons in an object, by orienting the fields
>in random directions: but not by STOPPING the electrons in an object.
>No matter HOW much force is brought to bear on electrons, one cannot
>bring them to a complete STOP. Indeed one cannot even appreciably slow
>them down.
>
>This, then, is either totally against Newton's First Law, or else there
>must be a FORCE keeping the electrons in motion despite all attempts to
>bring them to a stop, or even to slow them down!
>
>A (good) permanent magnet is NOT demagnetised no matter how many times
>it is stuck on to the fridge and removed therefrom and then stuck on
>back again: so that means that the charges (i.e., electrons) in it are
>being kept perpetually IN MOTION, and which KEEP on moving despite all
>attempts to bring them to a stop. The motion then must exist, and is
>perpetuated despite all attempts to eliminate it, with the help of a
>force which many scientists do not yet recognise as having any
>existence (although some scientists, like Puthoff, Rueda and Haisch, do
>recognise it: they, and others, call it the "Zero Point Force" or ZPF),
>or else the motion exists, and is perpetuated, in CONTRAVENTION to
>Newton's First Law. Take your pick.
>
>But either way, one should be able to make USE of this perpetual motion
>of electrons, which makes a permanent magnet a PERMANENT magnet, to
>generate electricity in the macro world. This is exactly what Patent
>No. 6,362,718 B1 does.
>
>Cheers.
Entropy isn't what it used to be.
Regards,
Don Williams
La Jolla, CA
Other related posts:
