ring_theory wrote:
"Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115074134.699562.324160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

ring_theory wrote:

I'll "put up" when I feel man is ready, not a minute sooner.

Fine. You'll be just a plain ol' liar until then. No one is
compelled to believe you in the absence of a demonstration.

-Mark Martin


Yea that would be a problem *IF* all I wanted was to prove i'm *not*
a liar.

Certainly. But if you didn't care what people think, you wouldn't be
here telling them all about your fantastic accomplishment.

-Mark Martin

"Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115076144.745951.56880@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

ring_theory wrote:
"Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115074134.699562.324160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

ring_theory wrote:

I'll "put up" when I feel man is ready, not a minute sooner.

Fine. You'll be just a plain ol' liar until then. No one is
compelled to believe you in the absence of a demonstration.

-Mark Martin


Yea that would be a problem *IF* all I wanted was to prove i'm *not*
a liar.

Certainly. But if you didn't care what people think, you wouldn't be
here telling them all about your fantastic accomplishment.

-Mark Martin


If I cared what they think I would have been gone along time ago.
As it's quite obvious that they think I'm a KOOK. But coming from those that
would rather call one an idiot rather than debating the issue.

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d54trc$emj$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hRede.34190$WI3.32206@attbi_s71...

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d534mr$tqs$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Y98de.40036$r53.4769@attbi_s21...

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d52a58$kji$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Dr%ce.39498$NU4.15916@attbi_s22...

Yea! do I get the kook of the century award??

Present your idea for perpetual motion. When
people point out why it won't work, you can
be judged on how you react. Anyone can make
a mistake in an analysis, only kooks cling
to the idea once the error has been exposed.

I'm not explaining perpetual motion there is no need. All one has to
do
is
look at the solar system. Know that it's been in existance for
billions
of
years. What's not perpetual about that?

It is losing energy in the form of
gravitational radiation and will eventually
decay, but even if it didn't, that isn't
the normal meaning of perpetual motion.


It's as perpetual as it gets in nature.What's the "normal" meaning of
perpetual motion if there is such a thing?

As I said below, it is usually taken to mean
something that will move indefinitely even if
energy is extracted without being replaced,
i.e. a machine that violates conservation of
energy. It is a misnomer.

This is the problem terminology.

Perpetual is defined as "occurring
continually : indefinitely long-continued".Your definition is more of
free-energy than PM. getting more out than put in.

Unity is defined as the radius of a circle.

Nonsense, I can draw circles of many different
radii.

the most important one you will draw is "0". It's not the result it is
the
mechanism.

It remains that the radius is not
constrained to have the value "1".

Sadly that's the way it is.

True unity is 0

or rather
0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999 for infinity.

It's an intiger that has difficulties in mathematics so it has been
rounded
to 1. That's the problem man has difficulties understanding something so
we
change it to something we can understand and explain mathematically. In
physics (in the naturally occurring events) it isn't rounded off it is
what
it is and that's it.

The radius of a circle as a
physical intity is a ring.

No, that's a torus.


The differences are?

A circle is a line is of zero width so
has zero volume and therefore cannot be
a physical entity:

x^2 + y^2 = r^2

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Circle.html

The torus has a volume so can be physical:

(R - sqrt(x^2 + y^2) )^2 + z^2 = r^2

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Torus.html

We're nitpicking terminology here. by definition "circle" is defined as
ring, which is a torus.

Step away from the equations Go to http://www.m-w.com/ and follow the
analogies related to your favorite terms in physics. I'm sure what you'll
get from it is a better understanding of those terms as well as related
issues. If your as intelligent as I feel you are you'll see a pattern
developing.

So which is wrong mathematics explanation or centuries old definitions?

That indicates unity is a ring at rest.
Over-unity would be the simple act of spinning the ring transforming
it's
mass into kinetic energy.

Spinning a ring doesn't change its mass into
energy, the energy you added in the act of
making it spin is added to its existing rest
mass. The total mass/energy remains the same
before and after.

I didn't say change.

You said "transforming". I don't see the difference.

A stationary mass is energy at rest.
The simple act of motivating it transforms it to kinetic energy,

No it doesn't, kinetic energy is the amount by
which the total energy of the spinning ring
_exceeds_ the energy it had at rest.


a 1/4 oz ring spinning at say 30,000 rpms, I would think exceeds the rest
mass.

The problem in terms of "perpetual motion" is how
to extract electrical energy without slowing the
flywheel or replacing the energy. If "Conservation
is a given with energy" then it is impossible.

Perpetual motion and free-energy are 2 different things.

What your referring to is free energy. The force your referring to is
called
back EMF, it's very pronounced in common armiture motors.

The coils are not Ideal in the common armature, as they are around a ring.
The common armature has a few issues that excludes it from bieng used as a
PM/OU/FE/AG mechanism. Friction is a big one due to the fact that it
occupies it's axis it is commonly supported by it. Requiring bearings,
rotational and thrust. the means of spinning the common armature are
brushes. Be aware that there are brushless motors and they are superior to
the brush type, However they suffer the same inflictions of friction.

The confusion here is that the phrase "Perpetual
motion" carries with it the concept that you can
have something that will move forever even if
you extract power from it. Simple orbital motion
isn't considered a perpetual motion machine
though you would think it should from the words.

There is a vast difference between what occures in nature and what can
be
done in a controlled environment with the right mechanism.
Truth is it hasn't been explored before now. Maxwell might have
discovered
it had his works continued. but the materials to do it with might not
have
been available to him to make even a crude prototype.

http://www.powerpulse.net/powerpulse/archive/aa_031901c1.stm

Page visited and info taken into concideration.

However flywheel energy in
it's common form suffers the same inflictions as the common armature
*friction* rotational and thrust.

Perpetual motion in the sense of a perpetual
motion machine does not exist in nature.

The very atoms in everything around you move perpetually. some slower
than
others.

"in the sense of a perpetual motion machine"

Yes. In the real sense of perpetual.

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Q6wde.40762$WI3.22855@attbi_s71...

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d54trc$emj$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hRede.34190$WI3.32206@attbi_s71...

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d534mr$tqs$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Y98de.40036$r53.4769@attbi_s21...

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d52a58$kji$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Dr%ce.39498$NU4.15916@attbi_s22...

Yea! do I get the kook of the century award??

Present your idea for perpetual motion. When
people point out why it won't work, you can
be judged on how you react. Anyone can make
a mistake in an analysis, only kooks cling
to the idea once the error has been exposed.

I'm not explaining perpetual motion there is no need. All one has
to
do
is
look at the solar system. Know that it's been in existance for
billions
of
years. What's not perpetual about that?

It is losing energy in the form of
gravitational radiation and will eventually
decay, but even if it didn't, that isn't
the normal meaning of perpetual motion.


It's as perpetual as it gets in nature.What's the "normal" meaning of
perpetual motion if there is such a thing?

As I said below, it is usually taken to mean
something that will move indefinitely even if
energy is extracted without being replaced,
i.e. a machine that violates conservation of
energy. It is a misnomer.

This is the problem terminology.

Absolutely.

Perpetual is defined as "occurring
continually : indefinitely long-continued".Your definition is more of
free-energy than PM. getting more out than put in.

Precisely. You are writing in science groups and
that is the meaning it the phrase has here. Perhaps
you missed my other post, look at the heading of
this page and the subject matter:

http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html

or just put "perpetual motion machine" into your
favourite search engine.

Unity is defined as the radius of a circle.

Nonsense, I can draw circles of many different
radii.

the most important one you will draw is "0". It's not the result it
is
the
mechanism.

It remains that the radius is not
constrained to have the value "1".

Sadly that's the way it is.

I don't follow, it would be sad if I could only
draw one size of circle but the radius can have
many values.

True unity is 0

Pardon? Was that a typo.

or rather
0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999 for infinity.

The sequence has the value is 1 - 10^(-N)
where N is the number of nines. For N equal
to infinity, that is exactly 1.

It's an intiger that has difficulties in mathematics so it has been
rounded
to 1. That's the problem man has difficulties understanding something so
we
change it to something we can understand and explain mathematically. In
physics (in the naturally occurring events) it isn't rounded off it is
what
it is and that's it.

Yep, exactly 1, nothing else.

The radius of a circle as a
physical intity is a ring.

No, that's a torus.


The differences are?

A circle is a line is of zero width so
has zero volume and therefore cannot be
a physical entity:

x^2 + y^2 = r^2

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Circle.html

The torus has a volume so can be physical:

(R - sqrt(x^2 + y^2) )^2 + z^2 = r^2

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Torus.html

We're nitpicking terminology here. by definition "circle" is defined as
ring, which is a torus.

This is a scientific group so the relevant
definition is as given on the page above:

"A circle is the set of points in a plane
that are equidistant from a given point O."

You said later:

Step away from the equations Go to http://www.m-w.com/ and follow the
analogies related to your favorite terms in physics. I'm sure what
you'll
get from it is a better understanding of those terms as well as related
issues. If your as intelligent as I feel you are you'll see a pattern
developing.

The Etymology of circle is given as:

"Middle English cercle, from Old French, from
Latin circulus, diminutive of circus circle,
circus, from or akin to Greek krikos, kirkos
ring; akin to Old English hring ring"

True a circus "ring" is circular, but that doesn't
mean that a circle is the same as a torus! At least
not until NASA produce a zero-gee Wall Of Death on
the ISS ;-)

So which is wrong mathematics explanation or centuries old definitions?

In these forums in general, and specifically since
you are talking about "unity" is the sense of a
mathematical identity, the mathematical definition
is of course applicable.

That indicates unity is a ring at rest.
Over-unity would be the simple act of spinning the ring
transforming
it's
mass into kinetic energy.

Spinning a ring doesn't change its mass into
energy, the energy you added in the act of
making it spin is added to its existing rest
mass. The total mass/energy remains the same
before and after.

I didn't say change.

You said "transforming". I don't see the difference.

A stationary mass is energy at rest.
The simple act of motivating it transforms it to kinetic energy,

No it doesn't, kinetic energy is the amount by
which the total energy of the spinning ring
_exceeds_ the energy it had at rest.


a 1/4 oz ring spinning at say 30,000 rpms, I would think exceeds the
rest
mass.

Correct, your error was to suggest the whole
1/4 oz "transforms to kinetic energy". The
kinetic energy is only the amount by which the
mass of the spinning ring exceeds the rest mass,
a tiny fraction of the whole.

snip
The problem in terms of "perpetual motion" is how
to extract electrical energy without slowing the
flywheel or replacing the energy. If "Conservation
is a given with energy" then it is impossible.

Perpetual motion and free-energy are 2 different things.

Not by the usually understood meaning of the
phrase. You are using it literally.

What your referring to is free energy. The force your referring to is
called
back EMF, it's very pronounced in common armiture motors.

I know, I'm a principal engineer with over
30 years experience and my present project
controls multiple 48kW DC motors.

The coils are not Ideal in the common armature, as they are around a
ring.
The common armature has a few issues that excludes it from bieng used as
a
PM/OU/FE/AG mechanism. Friction is a big one due to the fact that it
occupies it's axis it is commonly supported by it. Requiring bearings,
rotational and thrust. the means of spinning the common armature are
brushes. Be aware that there are brushless motors and they are superior
to
the brush type, However they suffer the same inflictions of friction.

Even in the case of a perfect setup with no
friction or other losses, the back EMF times
the load current gives the useful power output
(assuming DC) but that also equals the rate at
which the flywheel loses kinetic energy. The
load current creates a magnetic field which
applies a torque to the wheel to slow it down.

The confusion here is that the phrase "Perpetual
motion" carries with it the concept that you can
have something that will move forever even if
you extract power from it. Simple orbital motion
isn't considered a perpetual motion machine
though you would think it should from the words.

There is a vast difference between what occures in nature and what
can
be
done in a controlled environment with the right mechanism.
Truth is it hasn't been explored before now. Maxwell might have
discovered
it had his works continued. but the materials to do it with might not
have
been available to him to make even a crude prototype.

http://www.powerpulse.net/powerpulse/archive/aa_031901c1.stm

Page visited and info taken into concideration.

I was merely bringing to your attention that flywheel
energy storage systems certainly have been explored
in great detail and the power generation industry
continues to do so. I thought you would be interested
in general anyway.

However flywheel energy in
it's common form suffers the same inflictions as the common armature
*friction* rotational and thrust.

Certainly, but if frictional losses weren't negligible
compared to the stored energy, the technique would not
be commercially viable.

Perpetual motion in the sense of a perpetual
motion machine does not exist in nature.

The very atoms in everything around you move perpetually. some slower
than
others.

"in the sense of a perpetual motion machine"

Yes. In the real sense of perpetual.

But not in the sense of a machine from which
energy can be extracted perpetually.

"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ukvde.479$tp.412@fed1read04...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C6Xce.39117$r53.10889@attbi_s21...

As far as the mechanism to achieve it. I could explain it but you
wouldn't
believe it as the very function of the device involves all that you
have
been taught to hate or disbelieve.

You have no idea what I've been taught to hate or disbelieve.
If you were honest you would admit this now.

Ok. I can't magically predict, That I know what you've been taught to hate
or disbelieve. But I have a general idea when perpetual motion,
Over-unity,
free-energy, and anti-gravity are concerned.


Your assertion of your ability to explain this is not credible
unless you actually do it.

I have actually did it.

I don't seek credibility, The mechanism will give
it to me automatic.

.> Perpetual motion, unity/over-unity,
free-energy, and anti-gravity all in one device.

Put up or shut up.



I'll "put up" when I feel man is ready, not a minute sooner.

I ain't shutting up either.

I'll shut up when either of 2 conditions exist. #1 I'm dead. #2 Someone
can
show me that what I observe empirically, doesn't exist.

"Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115074134.699562.324160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

ring_theory wrote:

I'll "put up" when I feel man is ready, not a minute sooner.

Fine. You'll be just a plain ol' liar until then. No one is
compelled to believe you in the absence of a demonstration.

-Mark Martin


Yea that would be a problem *IF* all I wanted was to prove i'm *not* a
liar.

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d58pr0$l5l$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Q6wde.40762$WI3.22855@attbi_s71...

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d54trc$emj$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

....
Perpetual is defined as "occurring
continually : indefinitely long-continued".Your definition is more of
free-energy than PM. getting more out than put in.

Precisely. You are writing in science groups and
that is the meaning it the phrase has here. Perhaps
you missed my other post, look at the heading of
this page and the subject matter:

http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html

I hope you are not basing you're arguement on what other people think
perpetual motion is vs free-energy.

The page is lame and doubt it's credibility.
What does it have to do with the definition of perpetual motion??
I would think that one would have to know what perpetual motion or free
energy is to classify a device as such. And from the looks of it and
you're
arguement and referance material provided. It is apparent you or the
"webmaster" (and I use the term very losely) havn't a clue.

or just put "perpetual motion machine" into your
favourite search engine.


I'm not into playing games if you have a point about this make it.

Once again your perception of a perpetual motion machine and a free-energy
device is skewed.

... I could explain it but you wouldn't
believe it as the very function of the device involves all that you have
been taught to hate or disbelieve. Perpetual motion, unity/over-unity,
free-energy, and anti-gravity all in one device. ...

I'll snip most of this until I can figure out
whether it is all a misunderstanding.


"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tZTde.50759$WI3.17705@attbi_s71...

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d58pr0$l5l$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Q6wde.40762$WI3.22855@attbi_s71...

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d54trc$emj$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

...
Perpetual is defined as "occurring
continually : indefinitely long-continued".Your definition is more of
free-energy than PM. getting more out than put in.

Precisely. You are writing in science groups and
that is the meaning it the phrase has here. Perhaps
you missed my other post, look at the heading of
this page and the subject matter:

http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html

I hope you are not basing you're arguement on what other people think
perpetual motion is vs free-energy.

The page is lame and doubt it's credibility.
What does it have to do with the definition of perpetual motion??
I would think that one would have to know what perpetual motion or free
energy is to classify a device as such. And from the looks of it and
you're
arguement and referance material provided. It is apparent you or the
"webmaster" (and I use the term very losely) havn't a clue.

The phrase "perpetual motion" is widely used
to mean a system giving free energy and in a
scientific context that is the only meaning
I have seen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion_machine

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

http://www.kilty.com/pmotion.htm#Section2

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/redheffer.html

or just put "perpetual motion machine" into your
favourite search engine.


I'm not into playing games if you have a point about this make it.

I suggested you could look on the web and just
survey the most common way the phrase is used.
The same applies to "over-unity" which describes
a machine that requires an input of energy but
returns more than it uses.

Once again your perception of a perpetual motion machine and a
free-energy
device is skewed.

I think it is obvious from the references that my
understanding of the phrase is entirely standard
and anyway I replied to your post on that basis.
However, if you didn't mean a free energy machine
then we have been talking at cross purposes all
the time. This was your post replying to "Chosp":

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C6Xce.39117$r53.10889@attbi_s21...
snip
... I could explain it but you wouldn't
believe it as the very function of the device involves all that you have
been taught to hate or disbelieve. Perpetual motion, unity/over-unity,
free-energy, and anti-gravity all in one device. ...


You even used the words "free-energy" so what did
you mean if not that?

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d5g7g7$u1f$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
I'll snip most of this until I can figure out
whether it is all a misunderstanding.


"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tZTde.50759$WI3.17705@attbi_s71...

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d58pr0$l5l$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Q6wde.40762$WI3.22855@attbi_s71...

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d54trc$emj$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

...
Perpetual is defined as "occurring
continually : indefinitely long-continued".Your definition is more
of
free-energy than PM. getting more out than put in.

Precisely. You are writing in science groups and
that is the meaning it the phrase has here. Perhaps
you missed my other post, look at the heading of
this page and the subject matter:

http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html

I hope you are not basing you're arguement on what other people think
perpetual motion is vs free-energy.

The page is lame and doubt it's credibility.
What does it have to do with the definition of perpetual motion??
I would think that one would have to know what perpetual motion or free
energy is to classify a device as such. And from the looks of it and
you're
arguement and referance material provided. It is apparent you or the
"webmaster" (and I use the term very losely) havn't a clue.

The phrase "perpetual motion" is widely used
to mean a system giving free energy and in a
scientific context that is the only meaning
I have seen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion_machine

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

http://www.kilty.com/pmotion.htm#Section2

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/redheffer.html


I'm not into the standard usage of the term. It's incorrect.

I suggested you could look on the web and just
survey the most common way the phrase is used.
The same applies to "over-unity" which describes
a machine that requires an input of energy but
returns more than it uses.


I see. I'm not one to just go with the flow of what is common. Overunity
is
another misuse of a of a term. over-unity cannot be achieved until unity
is
achieved. unity has yet to be discovered and duplicated. I assure you that
once it is that achieving over-unity is a simple act.

Once again your perception of a perpetual motion machine and a
free-energy
device is skewed.

I think it is obvious from the references that my
understanding of the phrase is entirely standard
and anyway I replied to your post on that basis.
However, if you didn't mean a free energy machine
then we have been talking at cross purposes all
the time. This was your post replying to "Chosp":


Standard, is just another way of saying the masses are ignorant, and is
the
medium that spreads the ignorace incited.

I'm not saying your ignorant I'm saying that one should define terms as an
individual not as a group of individuals.

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C6Xce.39117$r53.10889@attbi_s21...
snip
... I could explain it but you wouldn't
believe it as the very function of the device involves all that you
have
been taught to hate or disbelieve. Perpetual motion, unity/over-unity,
free-energy, and anti-gravity all in one device. ...


You even used the words "free-energy" so what did
you mean if not that?

I used free-energy in the meaning that you and the rest of the scientific
society understand as perpetual motion. Getting more out than put in.

Conservation is a given with energy

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lPVee.61349$WI3.13971@attbi_s71...
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hRede.34190$WI3.32206@attbi_s71...

Conservation is a given with energy

Those appear contradictory so what are you
really saying?

snip
Then why have we been arguing about it all
this time if the meaning I took from your
words was the same as you intended ?

Anyway, getting away from the argument about the
meaning of the phrase, your first post seems to
say you think free energy can be achieved yet
later you said:

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hRede.34190$WI3.32206@attbi_s71...

Conservation is a given with energy

Those appear contradictory so what are you
really saying?

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d5hstj$e48$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lPVee.61349$WI3.13971@attbi_s71...
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hRede.34190$WI3.32206@attbi_s71...

Conservation is a given with energy

Those appear contradictory so what are you
really saying?

He isn't really saying anything.
He's just making it up as he goes.
Arguing simply for the sake of argument.

"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
news:L84fe.14754$tp.2072@fed1read04...

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d5hstj$e48$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lPVee.61349$WI3.13971@attbi_s71...
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hRede.34190$WI3.32206@attbi_s71...

Conservation is a given with energy

Those appear contradictory so what are you
really saying?

He isn't really saying anything.
He's just making it up as he goes.
Arguing simply for the sake of argument.




I don't have to seek an arguement on the net i can get that anytime here.
without effort.

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d5hstj$e48$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

snip
Then why have we been arguing about it all
this time if the meaning I took from your
words was the same as you intended ?

Because all four pseudo terms mean the same thing to the scientific
society.
But in reality they have their own meanings that are NOT as you stated.
If you cannot understand that they are different in meaning I cannot
explain
them as a seporate entity.


Anyway, getting away from the argument about the
meaning of the phrase, your first post seems to
say you think free energy can be achieved yet
later you said:

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hRede.34190$WI3.32206@attbi_s71...

Conservation is a given with energy

Those appear contradictory so what are you
really saying?

Free-energy is conserved.

Providing certain conditions exist in the
mechanism. perpetual or near perpetual motion, as well as unity.

The process to achieve free-energy is very basic. But it involves
achieving
unity and perpetual motion as I describe them and as defined, Not as a
commonly understood pseudo term.

Every mechanism has a process. the process to achieving free energy is #1
achieving true unaltered natural unity. #2 is natural unity in a perpetual
state. #3 is inducing energy from natural unity in it's perpetual state.
Free-energy is third in the process without the other two it cannot be
achieved. As it cannot be described without the full understanding of
processes 1 and 2.

Define unity as you believe it is.

Now define what it is in nature unaltered by man.