Science forums corruption

[billvon]

Patents cost money and originally I was lead to believe my leaked ideas were protected.

Once you publicly announce them they are just that - public and not protectable. Common sense.

Also some of my ideas are not for patent clerk eyes as I feel they need more protection than that . . .

If you think patent clerks are going to steal your ideas - you're nuts. Companies file billion dollar ideas all the time, and patent clerks don't steal them. (Indeed, companies wish they would - if they ever did, they'd have a big enough paper trail to recover all their future potential earnings with the patent, without having to do any of the work!)

and now I have serious trust issues with science itself because of what I see has happened to me . I baked some cakes and never even got a slice of my own cakes.

What cakes did you bake?

 

[DaveC426913]

... how do we know unless we try something ?

That was the question put to you. Why didn't you try it?

It is not a matter of technology. As sideshowbob points out: you cannot have enough energy to restore the system. It can't violate basic thermodynamics.

Hint: You have omitted a force in your mental setup. What does a magnetic field do to an object moving through it? Where does the energy in the object come from that generates the electricity?

 

[Interstella]

Once you publicly announce them they are just that - public and not protectable. Common sense.

If you think patent clerks are going to steal your ideas - you're nuts. Companies file billion dollar ideas all the time, and patent clerks don't steal them. (Indeed, companies wish they would - if they ever did, they'd have a big enough paper trail to recover all their future potential earnings with the patent, without having to do any of the work!)

What cakes did you bake?

Cakes I cannot really mention .

 

[sideshowbob]

Maybe they give up before technology got better , how do we know unless we try something ?

Thomas Edison:

"Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration."
​

Nikola Tesla:

"If he [Thomas Edison] had a needle to find in a haystack, he would not stop to reason where it was most likely to be, but would proceed at once with the feverish diligence of a bee, to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. … Just a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety percent of his labor."​

So... work hard; learn the theory; do the calculations.

 

[Interstella]

That was the question put to you. Why didn't you try it?

It is not a matter of technology. As sideshowbob points out: you cannot have enough energy to restore the system. It can't violate basic thermodynamics.

Hint: You have omitted a force in your mental setup. What does a magnetic field do to an object moving through it? Where does the energy in the object come from that generates the electricity?

It doesn't violate the conservation of energy , it equals it which is a very different matter. If you held a pendulum at height and let go , the pendulum swings and the momentum , I.e kE , will carry it into the upswing .
On the upswing the pendulum arm will pass through a copper coil creating energy that is directed back into the system , the physics works if we can produce enough charge using a transformer .

P.s of course there is a copper coil on either side.

 

[Interstella]

Thomas Edison:

"Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration."
​

Nikola Tesla:

"If he [Thomas Edison] had a needle to find in a haystack, he would not stop to reason where it was most likely to be, but would proceed at once with the feverish diligence of a bee, to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. … Just a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety percent of his labor."​

So... work hard; learn the theory; do the calculations.

Thank you , that's probably the best advice anyone has given me.
However , isn't sometimes trial and error just as practical and can turn up a few surprises ?

I didn't need calculations to do the dual slit experiment , I knew my method would work.

 

[Interstella]

OK , I have pE = Q

Potential energy equals charge ?

And Q = A+B/t

• A = coil one
• B = coil two

 

[sideshowbob]

I didn't need calculations to do the dual slit experiment ,

You wouldn't need any calculations here either if you understood the thermodynics.

 

[billvon]

Cakes I cannot really mention .

Well there ya go.

Sounds to me like you'd rather be a victim.

 

[Interstella]

You wouldn't need any calculations here either if you understood the thermodynics.

Well understanding hot and cold isn't that difficult of a subject , the physics is quite simple. I understand friction on a perpetual device will cause the device to stop unless of course we could put energy back into the system by using basic physics .

 

[RainbowSingularity]

 

[DaveC426913]

On the upswing the pendulum arm will pass through a copper coil creating energy that is directed back into the system

You don't create energy, you convert it from one form to another.

And neither gravity nor magnetism is a source of energy.



All right. Here's is what you have neglected that you would have learned if you had read about electricity or magnetism or about perpetual motion machines:

Thrusting a pole of a permanent magnet through a coil of wire, induces an electric current in the coil (as you know). What you neglected is that the current in turn sets up a magnetic field around the coil, making it a magnet. This magnet, in turn, opposes the movement of the weight.

In other words, it takes work to push the pendulum weight through a magnetic field. Since it was only moving via inertia, the opposing force will extract the kinetic energy of the weight and rapidly bring it to a stop.

 

[DaveC426913]

You wouldn't need any calculations here either if you understood the thermodynamics.

Well understanding hot and cold isn't that difficult of a subject

Since you are unaware that thermodynamics is not about "hot and cold", but about energy conservation - I think sideshowbob's remark is rather on-point.

 

[sideshowbob]

Well understanding hot and cold isn't that difficult of a subject , the physics is quite simple.

I had a professor who told us: The first time he studied thermodynamics, as an undergrad, he didn't understand it. The second time he studied it, as a grad student, he thought he understood it. But when he had to teach it, as a post-doc, he realized he didn't understand it as well as he thought he did.

You don't seem to be very far along on that path.

... we could put energy back into the system by using basic physics .

We sure could - and one of the most fundamental laws of physics says we have to put more in than we get back out.

 

[billvon]

Well understanding hot and cold isn't that difficult of a subject , the physics is quite simple.

No, it's really not. If you think thermo is "quite simple" then there's a lot of it you don't understand.

I understand friction on a perpetual device will cause the device to stop unless of course we could put energy back into the system by using basic physics .

Then you don't understand basic physics.

 

[Seattle]

No, it's really not. If you think thermo is "quite simple" then there's a lot of it you don't understand.

Then you don't understand basic physics.

So...you're not going to support his book write?

 

[Interstella]

No, it's really not. If you think thermo is "quite simple" then there's a lot of it you don't understand.

Then you don't understand basic physics.

That is incorrect , a true scientist can simplify their own interpretation for easy understanding . Thermodynamics is as simple as hot and cold , obviously we can elaborate more than the basic principle but the subject is easy.

P.s hot and cold is the basic physics.

 

[Interstella]

Additionally

I had a professor who told us: The first time he studied thermodynamics, as an undergrad, he didn't understand it. The second time he studied it, as a grad student, he thought he understood it. But when he had to teach it, as a post-doc, he realized he didn't understand it as well as he thought he did.

You don't seem to be very far along on that path.


We sure could - and one of the most fundamental laws of physics says we have to put more in than we get back out.

How can anyone not understand the function of hot and cold ?

Try electrodynamics of moving bodies if you want a more complex subject .

 

[origin]

It doesn't violate the conservation of energy , it equals it which is a very different matter.

I noticed you did not respond to post 52, which is odd since Dave directly answered why you idea won't work.

 

[Interstella]

You don't create energy, you convert it from one form to another.

And neither gravity nor magnetism is a source of energy.



All right. Here's is what you have neglected that you would have learned if you had read about electricity or magnetism or about perpetual motion machines:

Thrusting a pole of a permanent magnet through a coil of wire, induces an electric current in the coil (as you know). What you neglected is that the current in turn sets up a magnetic field around the coil, making it a magnet. This magnet, in turn, opposes the movement of the weight.

In other words, it takes work to push the pendulum weight through a magnetic field. Since it was only moving via inertia, the opposing force will extract the kinetic energy of the weight and rapidly bring it to a stop.

That's not accurately true with my notion as the induced electricity is not a constant , it is a pulse device . An electromagnetic field can't sustain itself for that reason I should think or are you saying that even after the short pulse of induced electricity as left the coil , fed back into the system , that the coil will become magnetised without the electrical current ?

Explained further , once the magnet leaves the coil so does the induced electricity simultaneously .