"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7w7fe.55751$r53.12874@attbi_s21...

"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.

Free-energy, perpetual motion machines and
over-unity are all terms describing devices
which are capable of violating conservation
of energy. If you aren't saying you can do
that then I have no further comment to make.

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

I am aware of one physical situation which
could be considered to represent perpetual
motion in the literal sense (i.e. _without_
producing free energy or violating
conservation) so if that is all you are
saying then I don't disagree.

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.

The first two can be achieved, it is the
third which, by the law of conservation,
requires that the energy stored in the
"perpetual motion" system is reduced by
an amount equal to that extracted hence
overall you do not get any "free energy".

Define unity as you believe it is.

I would consider it the multiplicative
identity for real numbers, YMMV.

Now define what it is in nature unaltered by man.

Nature has no concept of definitions of
words.

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d5jdv5$urd$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7w7fe.55751$r53.12874@attbi_s21...

"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.

Free-energy, perpetual motion machines and
over-unity are all terms describing devices
which are capable of violating conservation
of energy. If you aren't saying you can do
that then I have no further comment to make.

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

I am aware of one physical situation which
could be considered to represent perpetual
motion in the literal sense (i.e. _without_
producing free energy or violating
conservation) so if that is all you are
saying then I don't disagree.

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.

The first two can be achieved, it is the
third which, by the law of conservation,
requires that the energy stored in the
"perpetual motion" system is reduced by
an amount equal to that extracted hence
overall you do not get any "free energy".

Show me where #1 and #2 has been achieved in a mechanism.

Define unity as you believe it is.

I would consider it the multiplicative
identity for real numbers, YMMV.

1

Now define what it is in nature unaltered by man.

Nature has no concept of definitions of
words.

That's a cop out. it's the additive identity 0.

Or rather
0.999999999999999999999999999999999999

Nature has no concept of "real numbers".

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dyefe.56300$r53.50410@attbi_s21...

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d5jdv5$urd$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7w7fe.55751$r53.12874@attbi_s21...

"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.

Free-energy, perpetual motion machines and
over-unity are all terms describing devices
which are capable of violating conservation
of energy. If you aren't saying you can do
that then I have no further comment to make.

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

I am aware of one physical situation which
could be considered to represent perpetual
motion in the literal sense (i.e. _without_
producing free energy or violating
conservation) so if that is all you are
saying then I don't disagree.

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.

The first two can be achieved, it is the
third which, by the law of conservation,
requires that the energy stored in the
"perpetual motion" system is reduced by
an amount equal to that extracted hence
overall you do not get any "free energy".

Show me where #1 and #2 has been achieved in a mechanism.

A process which achieves unity in a perpetual
state as i understand your posts would be a
system which is lossless but does not violate
conservation of energy. That is possible in
theory and I think that a current in a closed
superconducting circuit would qualify.

That is arguable of course but my point is
that achieving unity in that sense does not
suggest that over-unity is possible because
unity is consistent with conservation of
energy while over-unity violates it.

Of course even in systems with friction and
other losses of usable energy, they still
achieve exact "unity" in the physics sense
since the lost energy is still present in
the form (usually) of heat.

Define unity as you believe it is.

I would consider it the multiplicative
identity for real numbers, YMMV.

1

Exactly. That applies to all physical systems.

Now define what it is in nature unaltered by man.

Nature has no concept of definitions of
words.

That's a cop out. it's the additive identity 0.

Nonsense, that would mean that there would
be no energy out of a system in any form
regardless of how much you put in.

Or rather
0.999999999999999999999999999999999999

0.9 repeating is the same as 1, not 0.

Nature has no concept of "real numbers".

Which is the same as I said.

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d5kjti$8ut$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
snip
A process which achieves unity in a perpetual
state as i understand your posts would be a
system which is lossless but does not violate
conservation of energy. That is possible in
theory and I think that a current in a closed
superconducting circuit would qualify.

That is arguable of course but my point is
that achieving unity in that sense does not
suggest that over-unity is possible because
unity is consistent with conservation of
energy while over-unity violates it.


A ring is natural unity at rest,

the simple act of
spinning the ring is over-unity.

Over-unity is not
a violation in this case

it is the medium which allows
conservation of energy to exist in the system.
Linear and angular in the same mechanism.



Of course even in systems with friction and
other losses of usable energy, they still
achieve exact "unity" in the physics sense
since the lost energy is still present in
the form (usually) of heat.

That's because it's not exact unity.

it is an altered state of unity.
I'll agree that it isn't altered by much but it is enought to get punished
by thermodynamics.


Define unity as you believe it is.

I would consider it the multiplicative
identity for real numbers, YMMV.

1

Exactly. That applies to all physical systems.


known and current physical systems made by man.


Now define what it is in nature unaltered by man.

Nature has no concept of definitions of
words.

That's a cop out. it's the additive identity 0.

Nonsense, that would mean that there would
be no energy out of a system in any form
regardless of how much you put in.

Wrong, The problem is that 0 is referred to as nil, instead of true
natural
unity. "A system" not my system.

To spin a ring it has to be multipole, in essence an armature with
multiple
flux points. These flux points are the key element in induction. I don't
care how you look at it driving multiple flux fields through induction
coils
is going to produce a current. that cannot be denied. So now tell me again
how a system based on 0 as unity won't get energy out of it?

When i started this endevour the problem i was wanting to solve was,
how to drive multiple flux points through induction coils. Not to discover
perpetual motion or that there is a discrepency in the perception of
unity,
or discover over-unity. I didn't even know what free-energy was.

Or rather
0.999999999999999999999999999999999999

0.9 repeating is the same as 1, not 0.

Simular to, *not* the same as.

0.9 repeating can never be more or less than
what it is in nature. Man in their effort to explain in mathematical terms
what this intiger is. has rounded it off so it can be applied in the
mathematics. it works But the price is that true unity in a natural state
will forever elude mankind. which is sad because if we could truly
understand unity we could replicate it in a mechanism.


Nature has no concept of "real numbers".

Which is the same as I said.

No it is *simular* to what you said. In essence i sad that man doesn't
tell
natural physics what to do, natural physics dictates what man can and
cannot
do.

Man did this with rounding 0.9 infinite to 1. The result is that man
cannot
understand that thermodynamics can be utilized in a closed system. Instead
man thinks that everything is a violation of thermodynamics.

Of course it is
man took the first step to violation by changing unity to a multiplicative
identity.

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xJvfe.63108$r53.18277@attbi_s21...

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d5kjti$8ut$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
snip
A process which achieves unity in a perpetual
state as i understand your posts would be a
system which is lossless but does not violate
conservation of energy. That is possible in
theory and I think that a current in a closed
superconducting circuit would qualify.

That is arguable of course but my point is
that achieving unity in that sense does not
suggest that over-unity is possible because
unity is consistent with conservation of
energy while over-unity violates it.


A ring is natural unity at rest,

Those words make no sense. "unity", amogst
other meanings, is a mathematical value
which is 1. A ring is a physical object,
not a number.

the simple act of
spinning the ring is over-unity.

No it isn't, the energy increase in the
ring (kinetic energy) is exactly equal
to the amount of energy added by the act
of spinning the ring. It won't spin
unless you push it some way.

Over-unity is not
a violation in this case

Agreed, that's because it isn't over unity.

it is the medium which allows
conservation of energy to exist in the system.
Linear and angular in the same mechanism.



Of course even in systems with friction and
other losses of usable energy, they still
achieve exact "unity" in the physics sense
since the lost energy is still present in
the form (usually) of heat.

That's because it's not exact unity.

Yes it is, the total is exactly the same
or a ratio of exactly 1, when you include
all the energy.

it is an altered state of unity.
I'll agree that it isn't altered by much but it is enought to get
punished
by thermodynamics.


Define unity as you believe it is.

I would consider it the multiplicative
identity for real numbers, YMMV.

1

Exactly. That applies to all physical systems.


known and current physical systems made by man.


Now define what it is in nature unaltered by man.

Nature has no concept of definitions of
words.

That's a cop out. it's the additive identity 0.

Nonsense, that would mean that there would
be no energy out of a system in any form
regardless of how much you put in.

Wrong, The problem is that 0 is referred to as nil, instead of true
natural
unity. "A system" not my system.

Call it what you like, multiply any value
by 0 and you get 0 as the result, not the
number you were multiplying. Multiply energy
input by an efficiency of 0 and you get no
energy output.

To spin a ring it has to be multipole, in essence an armature with
multiple
flux points. These flux points are the key element in induction. I don't
care how you look at it driving multiple flux fields through induction
coils
is going to produce a current. that cannot be denied. So now tell me
again
how a system based on 0 as unity won't get energy out of it?

It was your suggestion that 0 was "unity" and
IMO that is complete nonsense.
It also conflicts
with your many other statements where you say
unity has the value 1 (or 0.9 repeating as you
write it).

When i started this endevour the problem i was wanting to solve was,
how to drive multiple flux points through induction coils. Not to
discover
perpetual motion or that there is a discrepency in the perception of
unity,
or discover over-unity. I didn't even know what free-energy was.

It appears you still don't.

Or rather
0.999999999999999999999999999999999999

0.9 repeating is the same as 1, not 0.

Simular to, *not* the same as.

Not "similar to", "identical to". "0.9 repeating"
and "1.0" are different ways of writing the same
value.

Nature has no concept of "real numbers".

Which is the same as I said.

No it is *simular* to what you said. In essence i sad that man doesn't
tell
natural physics what to do, natural physics dictates what man can and
cannot
do.

No, what you said was 'Nature has no concept
of "real numbers".' which is true, it has
physical quantities

qualitatively by numbers relating measurable
parameters to reference quantities known as
units.

Man did this with rounding 0.9 infinite to 1. The result is that man
cannot
understand that thermodynamics can be utilized in a closed system.
Instead
man thinks that everything is a violation of thermodynamics.

Nope, we say that nothing violates certain laws.
You are the one trying to produce the violation.

Of course it is
man took the first step to violation by changing unity to a
multiplicative
identity.

Efficiency is the ratio of output to input
so it is multiplicative to start with.

"Wally AngleseaT >" <"<wanglese"@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote
in message news:hbpo6111lvqfaej8lv5mdl29m2sv8po2t8@4ax.com...
SNIP

Tempel1 orbits in a 2:1 resonance with Jupiter.

IN a few years, Jupiter will give it another nudge, as it has in the
past. JUpiter nudged the comet so that it "went missing" for years,
before being re-acquired, and working back the mechanics, it was
established that the object was indeed Tempel1.

On of the reasons NASA picked Temepl1 is that it's orbit is so
precisely known. Something the chicken littles of the world seem to
deliberately ignore.



Right I can agree with that however it's not it's natural orbit that bothers
me as much as what it's orbit is going to be after we blow some landscape
out of it and give it a boost in velocity altering it's orbit.

Had this approach been used on titan we'd be dealing with a cataclismic
galactical event! Some things don't react well with explosions.

NASA could have just as well landed a probe of sorts on it and collect data
over a period of time which is the normal method. Why all of a sudden do we
change our method of observation??

Colliding particles isn't enough??

I just hope my speculations are wrong!

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 05:55:49 GMT, "ring_theory"
ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote:


"Wally AngleseaT >" <"<wanglese"@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote
in message news:hbpo6111lvqfaej8lv5mdl29m2sv8po2t8@4ax.com...
SNIP

Tempel1 orbits in a 2:1 resonance with Jupiter.

IN a few years, Jupiter will give it another nudge, as it has in the
past. JUpiter nudged the comet so that it "went missing" for years,
before being re-acquired, and working back the mechanics, it was
established that the object was indeed Tempel1.

On of the reasons NASA picked Temepl1 is that it's orbit is so
precisely known. Something the chicken littles of the world seem to
deliberately ignore.



Right I can agree with that however it's not it's natural orbit that bothers
me as much as what it's orbit is going to be after we blow some landscape
out of it and give it a boost in velocity altering it's orbit.

Had this approach been used on titan we'd be dealing with a cataclismic
galactical event! Some things don't react well with explosions.

NASA could have just as well landed a probe of sorts on it and collect data
over a period of time which is the normal method. Why all of a sudden do we
change our method of observation??

Colliding particles isn't enough??

I just hope my speculations are wrong!


Just a gentle reminder......