Tired of these magnet motor believer.

[beast775]

Power is Power added,i remember a guy who was peddling a bicycle rigged to a generator to watch a tv guy was outta breath in 3 minutes.

 

[nutnspecial]

Are you also saying it's foolish to think there's no room for improvement, and that free energy can't exist?

Yes.

okay simple argument (for the simple): theory of relativity is effectively disproved with areas of quantum mechanics that show faster-than-light communication. Newtonian physics is being called into question by these theories.
Emc2 is equally antiquated and just as likely to be false if faster-than-light is now proven.

There's enough clues of this in my mind, to admit it is possible. Without even bringing the deficiencies of our numbers system into it, attempting to show our understanding must be incomplete. I can't believe anyone wouldn't think this, and almost get angry, but then gently remind myself that I thought the same way once.
(math can't divide 1 by 3 or draw a circle without running into infinity.)
[youtube]uXoh6vi6J5U[/youtube]

maybe it is you that need to learn where the physics of the last 80 years has gone so far, working with open minds to solve the problems in einsteins theories and of his day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDQH5x7svfg&list=PLg-OiIIbfPj29p75wF3P5Fqnb1UGyYc5S

 

[MrDude_1]

theory of relativity is effectively disproved with areas of quantum mechanics that show faster-than-light communication.

Nope. Wrong.
Also, all experimental evidence so far that thought it found a solution, has been retracted by its authors and entirely disproven.

Emc2 is equally antiquated and just as likely to be false if faster-than-light is now proven.

Its not. and its not.

There's enough clues of this in my mind, to admit it is possible.

Because you have no formal or self education on the subject. I also have a cousin that thinks someone can program a smartphone app to drive his car...because he knows nothing about software development or robotics.

Without even bringing the deficiencies of our numbers system into it, attempting to show our understanding must be incomplete. I can't believe anyone wouldn't think this, and almost get angry, but then gently remind myself that I thought the same way once.
(math can't divide 1 by 3 or draw a circle without running into infinity.)

You keep saying this. You are correct in grade school math, you can run into an infinite loop with simple division.
The problem is not math. The problem is you do not know higher level math. You obviously have no education of the subject further than basic 1/3 = .3333333...
The number written out on paper isnt important, the concept it represents is. If I made the symbol "rabbit pancake" to represent that ... then we can 100% solve the equation 1/3=
Then we can use it like we use any other number.... And this isnt anything complex.


So far you have yet to say anything of value that cant be dismissed by a first year math/science student. I am willing to bet you're not a graduate of higher learning. Before you go off trying to convince someone of something, why not educate yourself. You are not the first person to ever talk to me about the subject.

 

[The fingers]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/question608.htm
When we were kids, the closest we got to perpetual motion was the ubiquitous dippy bird and the fascinating crystal radio. :lol:

 

[nutnspecial]

mrdude:
I concede the argument to you.

edit* you're right, I'm self taught and prefer out of the box thinking, but I was once just like you :lol:

 

[Magnumb]

Oh this is a delicious conversation!

First post! Hello to all!

I agree somewhat with the OP. I think Perpetual Motion, free energy and free energy often get confused.

The second of the two free energy's I wrote above is in regards to our ionosphere. Teslas research into wireless power covered two areas. 1 was the broadcasting of it, the second was the collection of it from the ionosphere.

Lots of theories and of course stories abound regarding various levels of assumed success he had with this.

We know today, without a doubt that there is a staggering amount of energy in the ionosphere. Example: Super thunderbolts which are well studied and mostly understood are rare bolts of lightning of immense power that ground the ionosphere; sprites, elves etc form during these events.

There is a growing body of evidence showing that internal friction/winds of a storm aren't nearly sufficient to generate the potential difference required for lightning. There is a direct correlation between sunspot activity (increased proton release via CME) and a marked increase in electrical storm activity.

NASA has studied dust devils extensively when it was discovered there is significant energy (measured voltage) associated with one. This has gone towards NASA eventually sorta, kinda admitting that they now understand that dust devils on Mars, something that simply shouldn't be possible with an atmosphere 1% as dense as our own, are caused by electrical interaction in Mars atmosphere. There is for all intents and purposes no wind on Mars, dust devils have shown to spontaneously form and track across the ground and peak at altitudes of some 80 miles or more (I'll need to get you the exact number)

Now while this all may seem off topic, I wish only to point out that while there are loons for sure, they may be on to something....just nowhere close to understanding why, or how, or if it's feasible to achieve - though they commendably hold to blind hope at times. The standard model of cosmology doesn't account for the electromagnetic force which is 10^39 more powerful than gravity. Which is to say, I feel we are quite literally missing the boat because we ignore the energy around us. Does that hold much meaning to free energy believers? hell no. And while the electric nature of our universe is just beginning to be understood - should we ever be able to tap into the ionosphere on any level, it sure as heck won't be easy and it certainly won't be cheap.

I see many disciplines touch lightly upon or draw significantly from Electromagnetic theory - but we are all ships passing in the night. Any understanding of it really needs to be multidisciplinary.

 

[nicobie]

I think that we already have all the "free" energy we need. It's called solar. :wink:

 

[flathill]

If you are a skeptic you will love this PBS episode

[youtube]2MFAvH8m8aI[/youtube]

 

[nutnspecial]

"Delicious" "conversation"- I wasn't thinking that concerning the direction, but like the thread.

I like your post magthumb- well put.

Fingers, the dippy bird and crystal radio are very cool, as is newton's cradle and the like- all hint at the potential for easy free(er) energy from (almost) perpetual motion.

Flathill, I consider myself a skeptic of psychics, at least how they are defined presently.
The show was interesting, but already being a skeptic, I'd actually prefer a show with the same delivery style but that seeks out highly questionable and controversial subject matter to attempt to convince me otherwise!!!

Something like this I find interesting because it raises questions in my eyes honestly and seemingly without bias.
[youtube]9-4sI34aIZ0[/youtube]


Now, in the flavor of the thread, and maybe we can get Doc to comment:
What about this?
free energy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2merTZ7QFs

perpetual motion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnIyAAz7tUc

And the bedini was on mythbusters (i already thought they were a disinformation source, soooo)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEtiNum9MpM

I have always loved magnets and would love to mess around with this sh8t

Oh and have you guys heard of the perpetual motion ferris wheel- saw this years ago on an 1hr docu and that dude shot down all kinds of things. love the warning at 4:30 lol, the show annoys me with their attitude.
[youtube]rsBplmMDcRQ[/youtube]

 

[r3volved]

mrdude:
I concede the argument to you.

edit* you're right, I'm self taught and prefer out of the box thinking, but I was once just like you :lol:

On the issue of 1/3 = .333333...
This is just a result of the base 10 number system. Mr dude is correct in that the representation - the concept of 1/3 is the important part, not the symbol representation. A base 12 system can be divided into 3rds without infinite decimal, but the 1/3 it represents is the same 'concept' as 0.333333.
Computers do not use base 10 due to a lot of these holes in calculation - machine language is binary in essence and written in hex (base 16).

 

[nutnspecial]

Thanks r3volved- I do understand that fractions and geometry are the true standards.

The ability to solve or explain things is pretty important I think? Maybe that's the sticking point, but here's my thoughts:

If base 10 is inadequate, why even use it?
My point is, if we need to change our 'rulers' to explain different things, doesn't that tell you something?

It tells me there is room for improvement- That our understanding of math is not suffient to explain the world around us.

I think the subject could even warrant it's own topic due to the clarification potential.

On magnet topic- I posted several links above- what do you guys think?

If I make this:
[youtube]zqG-TL0WnjE[/youtube]
Will it work?

 

[Drunkskunk]

.....

If I make this:
(snip)
Will it work?

The absolute best thing you can do is build it an see. If the answer isn't so obvious to you as to why that isn't perpetual motion, then perhaps hands on experience is exactly what you need.

 

[nutnspecial]

Hmmm, well thanks. That's kind of a snarky answer tho.

I guess it depends on how you define perp motion.
Who would define it as anything other than what we can observe around and within us?

I am happy with the best application of magnets to mimic the constant and renewing motion we see in things from the spinning of electrons at the subatomic level, to the earth and solar system spinning second by second, milenium by milenium.

Just wth does free energy or perp motion mean in your mind then? I really am curious.

over-unity by it's very definition means that to prove it, one must prove that all science and our perception is wrong.
I do believe in a perfect infinite fabric within all of existence,
It makes me more comfortable to face the terrible things that happen and the challenges in life, that only appear to end in death and decay.
so although unproven and maybe unproveable, I guess I do believe "overunity"

-but that video is just of 'simple machine magnet wheel utilizing gravity and magnetics to spin indefinitely"

"indefinitely" defined as "life of spin determined only by life of the magnets/ and revolving mechanics" as we can be fairly sure they will fail before gravity or physics as we know it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqG-TL0WnjE

 

[Jonathan in Hiram]

NASA has studied dust devils extensively when it was discovered there is significant energy (measured voltage) associated with one. This has gone towards NASA eventually sorta, kinda admitting that they now understand that dust devils on Mars, something that simply shouldn't be possible with an atmosphere 1% as dense as our own, are caused by electrical interaction in Mars atmosphere. There is for all intents and purposes no wind on Mars, dust devils have shown to spontaneously form and track across the ground and peak at altitudes of some 80 miles or more (I'll need to get you the exact number)

Mars has periodic nearly global sandstorms which sometimes take months to entirely settle out of the atmosphere.

http://science.opposingviews.com/average-wind-speed-mars-3805.html

To understand the winds of Mars, you have to understand the planet's atmosphere. The surface temperature varies from minus 87 to minus 5 degrees Celsius (minus 125 to 23 degrees Fahrenheit). The atmosphere is mostly a mixture of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and argon, with traces of other gases. The surface pressure is very low, as Mars has a very thin atmosphere. Earth has an average air pressure of 1,013 millibars, or 29.92 inches of mercury, more than a hundred times that of Mars, at 7.5 millibars or 0.224 inches of mercury.

The sites of the Viking landers are some of the best-studied regions on Mars. Like the wind speeds of Earth, the average Martian wind speeds varied by season. At the Viking sites, the average wind speed registered at 2 to 7 meters per second (5 to 16 mph) during the Martian summer. During the fall, the average wind speed increased to 5 to 10 meters per second (11 to 22 mph). Across the year, the wind speed on Mars averaged 10 meters per second (or 22 mph).

The low gravity of Mars allows for much greater wind speeds at times. Under the right weather conditions, the wind speed on Mars can reach up to 17 to 30 meters per second. The maximum speed of 30 meters per second (60 mph) was observed during a dust storm at the Viking site.

Mars has some of the most dramatic dust storms of any planet in the solar system. The low gravity on Mars promotes much more powerful dust storms than those seen on Earth. Those on Mars are a vast, planet-wide phenomena. When the dust storms on Mars begin, they can envelope the planet's hemispheres for years at a time, creating a challenge for exploration.

 

[Dauntless]

Hmmm, well thanks. That's kind of a snarky answer tho.

Rather than comment directly, I'll let my own response speak for itself.

If you build it, will it work? No, will it work as INTENDED? The reason a lot of people are building this nonsense and swearing they're a success is they don't understand the meaning, or I should say MEANINGLESSNESS, of their results.

My favorite example was maybe 10 years ago. I watched an online video. This guy was using a battery powered drill to run one of those devices. He had voltmeters set up to show how many 'Volts used' and how many 'Volts produced.' I should think there would already be a few giggles in here.

So when the voltage showing coming from the device exceeded the voltage running the drill, he lost it completely. I wish I could find that video and post it here. He was fantasizing out loud about his place in history, about keeping "Them" from suppressing this "Discovery." He accidentally got his face in front of the camera so they could see who to get the hit out on, right? I wonder how hard a time people had explaining to him that the higher voltage did not mean he was producing more energy than he was using. The fact he had his video online shows he was convinced he'd accomplished something.

There's just so many people who don't know how to interpret results. All those people with those silly watertanks on their engine producing all this hydrogen for them, swearing up and down their gas mileage went up. Some of them literally didn't understand about writing down the miles where you fill the tank the first time and having exactly how many miles you drove by the 2nd time you fill up to figure your exact mileage, or even about mileage varying from the sort of driving you're doing, but they swear they can say their mileage improved. Was it running too lean? Was it getting too hot? Was it stalling a lot as they pulled away at the light?

I wonder what some of these overunity fanatics think of solar power? Will they be quicker to point out all the bird getting fried at solar fields in the desert while the tortosies lose their stomping grounds? Do they criticize the same sort of animal deaths with wind turbines? No emotional commitment to what those who at least THINK we're more logic are ready to accept, they may only see the problems.

And what of geothermal? That sure SOUNDS like free energy. Is there a problem with releasing all that heat from the ground? I guess we'll only know for sure once there IS massive fields of it. Only if their really is a problem with full scale geothermal we won't learn about it until we're overcommitted to it, making it as hard to let go of as fossil fuels are now. I wonder what a knowledgeable geologist would say about having a one square mile area having so much heat a pressure released that it's dramatically below what's found all around it. . . .

Oh and, if I may: (Or may not, I just MUST.)

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
—Arthur C. Clarke

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."
—Larry C. Niven

"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from SCIENCE!"
—Agatha C. Heterodyne

 

[doctorGONZO]

Just like it is easyier and make people happier to believe it is possible than taking the time to understand physics law and math to discover it does not work..

The worst of all is when people make video showing any free energy principle that are using trick and hidden battery or wires that power their system...

Or what is pissing me off is when people think that energy is in term of volt or watt!!! so when they see higher voltage... they believe there is higher ... not just power!!.. but ENERGY !!.. these person also rarely distinguish the difference bwteeen mAh and mA.... where energy is a matter of time...

For them volt, power and energy are the same... a 24V 5Ah battery have more energy than a 12v 10Ah battery...

for them a simple picture camera flash circuit create energy because the little 2 AA battery are creating 300Vdc inside... lol..... so thinking in the samw way why they just dont buy a 15kV Neon transformer to power their entire neighborhood... lol

That is just rediculous!

Doc

That is just rediculous!

rediculous!

Dear doctorBASS, I am deeply embarrassed to bring this matter to your humble attention, yet, guessing how adamant you may be about linguistic accuracy, I must inform you that there ain't no such word as rEdiculous.

There is a word spelled as rIdiculous. With an "I", not with an "E". r I d i c u l o u s.

Please do not bother to thank me. I am just glad to help you, being as how obviously you have deeply and completely examined every possible way that current mainstream physics principles and calculations, in a like way with your examining every possible way that a word can be spelled, have enabled you to definitively declare that OU is impossible, and, that rediculous is spelled rediculous, not, ridiculous.


You are welcome
GONZ

 

[Punx0r]

Hmmm, well thanks. That's kind of a snarky answer tho.

Possibly, but warranted. I respectfully suggest that what you are experiencing the classic double burden of ignorance.

It's like you've take a "little learning", have skipped all the intermediate steps of knowledge and understanding and are attempting to tackle the thorniest aspects of the workings of our universe. You've dismissed modern mathematics as inadequate without, I suspect, sufficient understanding of mathematics to determine whether or not they are adequate.

I am just as ignorant when it comes to the Big Questions. I just know it already To quote Socrates: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing". I've heard several smart people claim that they more they knew, the more they realised they didn't know.

IMO you need to take many steps back and build your knowledge. Probably starting with the physics behind over-unity and analysis of claimed perpetual motion machines. Some reading on the uses of different base-number systems would also be good. If you come up with a concise summary then please share it so we can all learn.

 

[nutnspecial]

Gonz= Please do not bother to thank me. I am just glad to help you, being as how obviously you have deeply and completely examined every possible way that current mainstream physics principles and calculations, in a like way with your examining every possible way that a word can be spelled, have enabled you to definitively declare that OU is impossible

Rolling on the floor. "oh no he did'int"

Dauntless, I think your comments are great, (geothermal good point) what you mention doesn't seem to correlate directly to anything I was asking? (like the quotes tho )

Punxor, good points also, I like the quote from Socrates. You have admitted specific things you don't feel up to commenting on. I appreciate the well-intended pointers- maybe we could all do with more 'study' in order to gain a better idea of the big picture.

I can only assume responders willfully don't wish or feel capable of a constructive response? Here's the rest of the post that you seem to think is less applicable to reply to?
How is this thinking incorrect? How are my definitions inadequate?

Jay= I guess it depends on how you define perp motion.
Who would define it as anything other than what we can observe around and within us?

I am happy with the best application of magnets to mimic the constant and renewing motion we see in things from the spinning of electrons at the subatomic level, to the earth and solar system spinning second by second, milenium by milenium.

Just wth does free energy or perp motion mean in your mind then? I really am curious.

(edit* in contrast,) over-unity by it's very definition means that to prove it, one must prove that all science and our perception is wrong.
I do believe in a perfect infinite fabric within all of existence,
It makes me more comfortable to face the terrible things that happen and the challenges in life, that only appear to end in death and decay.
so although unproven and maybe unproveable, I guess I do believe "overunity"

-but that video is just of 'simple machine magnet wheel utilizing gravity and magnetics to spin indefinitely"

"indefinitely" defined as "life of spin determined only by life of the magnets/ and revolving mechanics" as we can be fairly sure they will fail before gravity or physics as we know it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqG-TL0WnjE

 

[Dauntless]

. . . . what you mention doesn't seem to correlate directly to anything I was asking?

Oh, at the College/university level my education was built around 'Critical Thinking.' (English, Theatre, Film/TV, the Humanites, etc.) As with an Easter Egg hunt where you actively look instead of standing saying 'I don't see any,' you're supposed to think about what you're reading.

Damn guys!.. look like the power of number is getting more and more important for people that believe in these "free" energy.
. . . . and with misplaced or missinterpreted data on multimeter they are trying to make people to believe that it create energy !
and... what make me laugh is when they claim that it's because of the power of gouvernment that nobody are using that to power their house or cars :lol:
Doc

It helps to remember you're not the only one.

If I make this:
Will it work?

Also helps to remember everything you did ask.

Applying critical thinking always helps. Such as with the Socrates quote: The man is on record as also saying "You can't learn what you don't already know." Ah, my favorite. Dang, now we have TWO quotes where he's guilty of circular reasoning. If you knowyoudon'tknowanything then you know SOMETHING and if you alreadyknowitwhy would you try to learn it?

What "Socrates" (Or Plato, who might have thought up every single quote he attributed to Socrates) is getting at is that a little knowledge is dangerous, a lot of knowledge is incomplete, etc. You know how to turn the key, use the brake, etc., but that doesn't mean you know how to drive. My favorite quote refers to how long it might take to understand, the realization you might understand less than you thought you did, etc. Oh, and the realization that you're missing how it DIRECTLY relates. . . .

There is a word spelled as rIdiculous. With an "I", not with an "E". r I d i c u l o u s.

And then we apply the word ridiculous directly to electricity, with an 'E' substituted for the 'I'. . . . (Notice how much of that we see related to technology.)

. . . . in a like way with your examining every possible way that a word can be spelled, have enabled you to definitively declare that OU is impossible, and, that rediculous is spelled rediculous, not, ridiculous.

Him and Lewis and Clark. (Critical thinking reminds us that this is an analogy to how distractive comments arise out of context and are then used as arguments although they offer absolutely NO conclusion. . . .) Here this 'Time' magazine article on the 200th anniversary of their journey took time to ridicule (Non technological) their spelling, when a little research and/or CRITICAL THINKING would have led to the conclusion that their spelling was consistent not only with every journal entry they made but with college graduates of their schools and region at that time of no Merriam Webster dictionary to tell everyone there's only one way to spell those words. Did their spelling somehow mean Lewis and Clark and Bass are all wrong in what they have to say?

At least when I brought it up it was a joke with a punchline. But making hay over an english-as-a-second-language person's spelling is---TECHNOLOGICALLY rediculous! (This should become the official Endless Sphere spelling, as our contribution to English, the LIVING language where words and spellings CAN be added.)

You are welcome
GONZ

Why thank you, I FEEL so welcome!

Oh, by coincidence, I settled the argument recently on Clarke and Niven when the Agatha fans couldn't agree which said which: They all agreed on what Agatha said, apparently often misquoted. Isn't it amazing they all have the initial 'C.'

 

[Punx0r]

I firmly believe that critical thinking along with basic statistics should be taught in schools. The former especially is quick and easy to teach and a universal skill for life.

 

[nutnspecial]

@Dauntless- Hehe, I agree. Spelling=trivial. But sometimes lowblow=funny.

You are well spoken and thoughtful. Even if you don't try an answer directly. ?? Plenty of questions if you feel like taking a stab :wink:

Now I need to find a way to protect my last brain cell after the rest just exploded.

@Punxor: Yes

 

[Magnumb]

NASA has studied dust devils extensively when it was discovered there is significant energy (measured voltage) associated with one. This has gone towards NASA eventually sorta, kinda admitting that they now understand that dust devils on Mars, something that simply shouldn't be possible with an atmosphere 1% as dense as our own, are caused by electrical interaction in Mars atmosphere. There is for all intents and purposes no wind on Mars, dust devils have shown to spontaneously form and track across the ground and peak at altitudes of some 80 miles or more (I'll need to get you the exact number)

Mars has periodic nearly global sandstorms which sometimes take months to entirely settle out of the atmosphere.

http://science.opposingviews.com/average-wind-speed-mars-3805.html

To understand the winds of Mars, you have to understand the planet's atmosphere. The surface temperature varies from minus 87 to minus 5 degrees Celsius (minus 125 to 23 degrees Fahrenheit). The atmosphere is mostly a mixture of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and argon, with traces of other gases. The surface pressure is very low, as Mars has a very thin atmosphere. Earth has an average air pressure of 1,013 millibars, or 29.92 inches of mercury, more than a hundred times that of Mars, at 7.5 millibars or 0.224 inches of mercury.

The sites of the Viking landers are some of the best-studied regions on Mars. Like the wind speeds of Earth, the average Martian wind speeds varied by season. At the Viking sites, the average wind speed registered at 2 to 7 meters per second (5 to 16 mph) during the Martian summer. During the fall, the average wind speed increased to 5 to 10 meters per second (11 to 22 mph). Across the year, the wind speed on Mars averaged 10 meters per second (or 22 mph).

The low gravity of Mars allows for much greater wind speeds at times. Under the right weather conditions, the wind speed on Mars can reach up to 17 to 30 meters per second. The maximum speed of 30 meters per second (60 mph) was observed during a dust storm at the Viking site.

Mars has some of the most dramatic dust storms of any planet in the solar system. The low gravity on Mars promotes much more powerful dust storms than those seen on Earth. Those on Mars are a vast, planet-wide phenomena. When the dust storms on Mars begin, they can envelope the planet's hemispheres for years at a time, creating a challenge for exploration.

You are correct, I was going to touch on that but felt my post was long enough. Global sandstorms on Mars are even more "impossible" than a dust devil based on the standard model. There are correlations between these global events and Mars being at or near perihelion. There is a lot of evidence pointing to electrical interaction setting these off, to this day they completely baffle science, they have a few cute theories, but there was never anything in the standard model to predict this kind of activity. Predictive capacity of a model is central to its efficacy. Currently, the standard model has had a hell of a time predicting anything...scientists are often overtaken with shock and awe....until they find a creative way of fitting the unexpected into their model. Howeve as of late, it's been getting harder to do that. This has caused some cosmologists, physicists etc, to start looking into why...that is when things begin to get interesting.

Anyhow, 1% atmosphere, reduced gravity do not in any way set the stage for a global sandstorm. This is what I mean, they throw theories at it, but to see what it takes on earth to start a large sandstorm is staggering. In the rarified atmosphere the SR71 blackbird flew through at altitude, a couple of occasions called for ejection at Mach 3. Now that sounds like a death sentence, however, because the atmosphere is so thin, the pilots body/space suit only saw equivalent winds in the tens of miles per hour. Their descent into ever thickening atmosphere provided the friction needed to slow down. But I want to point out....that was a Mach 3 ejection.

When looking at wind speed on Mars, there isn't a direct correlation to wind speed on earth because the atmosphere is so thin. You would have to generate wind speeds in excess of Mach X to provide an equivalent wind on Mars. This is because 1% atmospheric density simply can't do the work at a given equivalent windspeed on earth. How, or where do you generate wind speeds so great on Mars to engulf it in a sandstorm, not to mention a sandstorm that towers far beyond anything on earth. I hope I'm explaining this clearly, but the reality is, science doesn't yet understand HOW this is possible, though they have theories.

There are some far more likely theories that centre on electromagnetic interaction. Interestingly, at times, these sandstorm fronts almost don't appear to move much, but just kick up vast clouds behind them.

It is indeed cool stuff. But we need to apply more than one line of thinking to solve problems, not just make everything fit a long ill fitting model. Currently, those who head the study of these events don't understand how they grow so suddenly, often from fixed locations (as seen on the largest one ever recorded) or why they stop....especially when they use solar heating as a possible model. They admit that if that was the Eason, there really is no reason for them to stop as temperatures reach 40deg C when Mars is engulfed. It is estimated the winds would need to be the equivalent of 250mph, considering Mars is a near vacuum, I'm sure you can see the challenges there.

 

[Jonathan in Hiram]

You are correct, I was going to touch on that but felt my post was long enough. Global sandstorms on Mars are even more "impossible" than a dust devil based on the standard model. There are correlations between these global events and massive CME's among other things. There is a lot of evidence pointing to electrical interaction setting these off, to this day they completely baffle science, they have a few cute theories, but there was never anything in the standard model to predict this kind of activity. Predictive capacity of a model is central to its efficacy. Currently, the standard model has had a hell of a time predicting anything...scientists are often overtaken with shock and awe....until they find a creative way of fitting the unexpected into their model. Howeve as of late, it's been getting harder to do that. This has caused some cosmologists, physicists etc, to start looking into why...that is when things begin to get interesting.

Anyhow, 1% atmosphere, reduced gravity do not in any way set the stage for a global sandstorm. This is what I mean, they throw theories at it, but to see what it takes on earth to start a large sandstorm is staggering. In the rarified atmosphere the SR71 blackbird flew through at altitude, a couple of occasions called for ejection at Mach 3. Now that sounds like a death sentence, however, because the atmosphere is so thin, the pilots body/space suit only saw equivalent winds in the tens of miles per hour. Their descent into ever thickening atmosphere provided the friction needed to slow down. But I want to point out....that was a Mach 3 ejection.

When looking at wind speed on Mars, there isn't a direct correlation to wind speed on earth because the atmosphere is so thin. You would have to generate wind speeds in excess of Mach X to provide an equivalent wind on Mars. This is because 1% atmospheric density simply can't do the work at a given equivalent windspeed on earth. How, or where do you generate wind speeds so great on Mars to engulf it in a sandstorm, not to mention a sandstorm that towers far beyond anything on earth. I hope I'm explaining this clearly, but the reality is, science doesn't yet understand HOW this is possible, though they have theories.

There are some far more likely theories that centre on electromagnetic interaction. Interestingly, at times, these sandstorm fronts almost don't appear to move much, but just kick up vast clouds behind them.

It is indeed cool stuff. But we need to apply more than one line of thinking to solve problems, not just make everything fit a long ill fitting model.

Wind power rises with the cube of velocity..

http://www.iowaenergycenter.org/wind-energy-manual/wind-and-wind-power/wind-speed-and-power/

The SR71 had an air conditioning system for the cockpit since air friction at cruising speed and altitude would heat it to levels not tolerable by humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird

Flying at 80,000 ft (24,000 m) meant that crews could not use standard masks, which could not provide enough oxygen above 43,000 ft (13,000 m). Specialized protective pressurized suits were produced by the David Clark Company for the A-12, YF-12, M-21 and SR-71. Furthermore, an emergency ejection at Mach 3.2 would subject crews to temperatures of about 450 °F (230 °C); thus, during a high altitude ejection scenario, an onboard oxygen supply would keep the suit pressurized during the descent

The cockpit could be pressurized to an altitude of 10,000 or 26,000 ft (3,000 or 7,900 m) during flight.[66] The cabin needed a heavy-duty cooling system, for cruising at Mach 3.2 would heat the aircraft's external surface well beyond 500 °F (260 °C)[67] and the inside of the windshield to 250 °F (120 °C). An air conditioner used a heat exchanger to dump heat from the cockpit into the fuel prior to combustion. The same air conditioning system was also used to keep the front (nose) landing gear bay cool, thereby eliminating the need for the special aluminum-impregnated tires on the main landing gear.

Mars is a very dry place on the whole, a great deal of extremely fine dust that has not been caked by the presence of moisture is not going to be that difficult to stir up even with only the thin air on Mars. Static electricity in an extremely dry atmosphere would certainly also tend to keep very fine particles aloft as they repelled each other as similar static charges do.

On the other hand there really are some as yet unexplained phenomena going on in the Martian atmosphere..

http://www.nature.com/news/martian-mystery-cloud-defies-explanation-1.16924

A mysterious plume that appeared on Mars in 2012 is testing scientists’ understanding of the Martian atmosphere.

Amateur astronomers spotted the bizarre feature rising off the edge of the red planet in March and April of 2012. It looked like a puff of dust coming off the surface, but it measured some 200 to 250 kilometres high. That is much higher than would be expected from the lower-altitude dust storms that rage across the planet.

Now a team of astronomers proposes that the plume was either a cloud of ice particles or a Martian aurora. But neither possibility fully explains the plume — raising new questions about the state of the Martian atmosphere. The study, led by astronomer Agustín Sánchez-Lavega of the University of the Basque Country in Bilbao, Spain, is published on 16 February in Nature1.

“This observation is a big surprise,” says Aymeric Spiga, a planetary scientist at the University of Pierre and Marie Curie in Paris, who was not involved in the work. “Another puzzle on Mars!”

 

[Doctorbass]

Just like it is easyier and make people happier to believe it is possible than taking the time to understand physics law and math to discover it does not work..

The worst of all is when people make video showing any free energy principle that are using trick and hidden battery or wires that power their system...

Or what is pissing me off is when people think that energy is in term of volt or watt!!! so when they see higher voltage... they believe there is higher ... not just power!!.. but ENERGY !!.. these person also rarely distinguish the difference bwteeen mAh and mA.... where energy is a matter of time...

For them volt, power and energy are the same... a 24V 5Ah battery have more energy than a 12v 10Ah battery...

for them a simple picture camera flash circuit create energy because the little 2 AA battery are creating 300Vdc inside... lol..... so thinking in the samw way why they just dont buy a 15kV Neon transformer to power their entire neighborhood... lol

That is just rediculous!

Doc

That is just rediculous!

rediculous!

Dear doctorBASS, I am deeply embarrassed to bring this matter to your humble attention, yet, guessing how adamant you may be about linguistic accuracy, I must inform you that there ain't no such word as rEdiculous.

There is a word spelled as rIdiculous. With an "I", not with an "E". r I d i c u l o u s.

Please do not bother to thank me. I am just glad to help you, being as how obviously you have deeply and completely examined every possible way that current mainstream physics principles and calculations, in a like way with your examining every possible way that a word can be spelled, have enabled you to definitively declare that OU is impossible, and, that rediculous is spelled rediculous, not, ridiculous.


You are welcome
GONZ

lol.. thanks for that attention! :wink: i do my best in english ...this is not my first language

 

[Magnumb]

You are correct, I was going to touch on that but felt my post was long enough. Global sandstorms on Mars are even more "impossible" than a dust devil based on the standard model. There are correlations between these global events and massive CME's among other things. There is a lot of evidence pointing to electrical interaction setting these off, to this day they completely baffle science, they have a few cute theories, but there was never anything in the standard model to predict this kind of activity. Predictive capacity of a model is central to its efficacy. Currently, the standard model has had a hell of a time predicting anything...scientists are often overtaken with shock and awe....until they find a creative way of fitting the unexpected into their model. Howeve as of late, it's been getting harder to do that. This has caused some cosmologists, physicists etc, to start looking into why...that is when things begin to get interesting.

Anyhow, 1% atmosphere, reduced gravity do not in any way set the stage for a global sandstorm. This is what I mean, they throw theories at it, but to see what it takes on earth to start a large sandstorm is staggering. In the rarified atmosphere the SR71 blackbird flew through at altitude, a couple of occasions called for ejection at Mach 3. Now that sounds like a death sentence, however, because the atmosphere is so thin, the pilots body/space suit only saw equivalent winds in the tens of miles per hour. Their descent into ever thickening atmosphere provided the friction needed to slow down. But I want to point out....that was a Mach 3 ejection.

When looking at wind speed on Mars, there isn't a direct correlation to wind speed on earth because the atmosphere is so thin. You would have to generate wind speeds in excess of Mach X to provide an equivalent wind on Mars. This is because 1% atmospheric density simply can't do the work at a given equivalent windspeed on earth. How, or where do you generate wind speeds so great on Mars to engulf it in a sandstorm, not to mention a sandstorm that towers far beyond anything on earth. I hope I'm explaining this clearly, but the reality is, science doesn't yet understand HOW this is possible, though they have theories.

There are some far more likely theories that centre on electromagnetic interaction. Interestingly, at times, these sandstorm fronts almost don't appear to move much, but just kick up vast clouds behind them.

It is indeed cool stuff. But we need to apply more than one line of thinking to solve problems, not just make everything fit a long ill fitting model.

Wind power rises with the cube of velocity..

http://www.iowaenergycenter.org/wind-energy-manual/wind-and-wind-power/wind-speed-and-power/

The SR71 had an air conditioning system for the cockpit since air friction at cruising speed and altitude would heat it to levels not tolerable by humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird

Flying at 80,000 ft (24,000 m) meant that crews could not use standard masks, which could not provide enough oxygen above 43,000 ft (13,000 m). Specialized protective pressurized suits were produced by the David Clark Company for the A-12, YF-12, M-21 and SR-71. Furthermore, an emergency ejection at Mach 3.2 would subject crews to temperatures of about 450 °F (230 °C); thus, during a high altitude ejection scenario, an onboard oxygen supply would keep the suit pressurized during the descent

The cockpit could be pressurized to an altitude of 10,000 or 26,000 ft (3,000 or 7,900 m) during flight.[66] The cabin needed a heavy-duty cooling system, for cruising at Mach 3.2 would heat the aircraft's external surface well beyond 500 °F (260 °C)[67] and the inside of the windshield to 250 °F (120 °C). An air conditioner used a heat exchanger to dump heat from the cockpit into the fuel prior to combustion. The same air conditioning system was also used to keep the front (nose) landing gear bay cool, thereby eliminating the need for the special aluminum-impregnated tires on the main landing gear.

Mars is a very dry place on the whole, a great deal of extremely fine dust that has not been caked by the presence of moisture is not going to be that difficult to stir up even with only the thin air on Mars. Static electricity in an extremely dry atmosphere would certainly also tend to keep very fine particles aloft as they repelled each other as similar static charges do.

On the other hand there really are some as yet unexplained phenomena going on in the Martian atmosphere..

http://www.nature.com/news/martian-mystery-cloud-defies-explanation-1.16924

A mysterious plume that appeared on Mars in 2012 is testing scientists’ understanding of the Martian atmosphere.

Amateur astronomers spotted the bizarre feature rising off the edge of the red planet in March and April of 2012. It looked like a puff of dust coming off the surface, but it measured some 200 to 250 kilometres high. That is much higher than would be expected from the lower-altitude dust storms that rage across the planet.

Now a team of astronomers proposes that the plume was either a cloud of ice particles or a Martian aurora. But neither possibility fully explains the plume — raising new questions about the state of the Martian atmosphere. The study, led by astronomer Agustín Sánchez-Lavega of the University of the Basque Country in Bilbao, Spain, is published on 16 February in Nature1.

“This observation is a big surprise,” says Aymeric Spiga, a planetary scientist at the University of Pierre and Marie Curie in Paris, who was not involved in the work. “Another puzzle on Mars!”

I don't disagree with what you have posted re wind power. And while that holds true on Mars, it also holds true here where we simply do not have events comparable to those on Mars even with a far more dense atmosphere. The near vacuum of Mars still posses a quandary...they have yet to explain (beyond conjecture) any mechanism sufficient to achieve world wide dust storms. The lack of atmosphere really does pose a problem for most theories.

Re the SR71, the very first ejection at altitude saw the pilots mask instantly ice over. Yes, the suit he wore protected him from buffeting winds and more importantly from his blood instantly boiling. All points you mention are true, still, the rarefied atmosphere still meant they experienced less relative wind even at Mach speeds. The aircraft needed the high altitude to achieve those ground speeds. I'm not sure if I 100% know where you were going with that info however, as it doesn't stand in opposition to my original point of the SR71's airspeed in rarefied atmosphere vs relative wind experienced by the pilots upon ejection.

Here is a fascinating video from space news/thunderbolts project. It's worth consideration as it is at the very least an interesting take on the Martian dust plumes. http://youtu.be/JJ6m3XQalTI