Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.7 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2016
    In general, for this to work, Einstein's statement about perpetual motion not existing because there has to be energy to create energy, must be proven unimportant, void, wrong, or bypassed in some form. From much studying i've concluded, that his statement doesn't apply to all models, especially one i spoke about in my post called Perpetual Motion Realized, which is also found on this site (an improvement of the old Float Belt Model). For in those models, liquid has such an important presence and we all know that liquid is always in motion, therefore energy is present. Plus, energy is present based on where buoyant objects are located, ready to fall via gravity, or rise due to buoyancy. So basically im saying, its wrong for the patent office to not accept blue prints in this category, because they think its a myth because Einstein didn't believe in it, but i've proven his statement void. I know how to do this, the details are listed in my other post, but i have no funds, no assistance, and have received no acknowledgement, even though its clear i beat Einstein on this one. I need yall's help. Sincerely, Joshua Troy Vernon. 33 yrs old, born July 4th, 1983 in winston, resides in Dobson, surry county, NC 27017 (my grandfather was a genius, used to decode enemy messages in the war. i studied history mostly but had a few great science teachers and i focused on water for i coached swimming for 7 seasons before turning my attention to this much needed project). thanks and good luck on assisting me towards this outstanding development
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2016 edited
    Good afternoon,  
    There are many people who are just like you.  
    They make claims, but have no funds to build what they claim. Then after an investor gives money based on an idea, then there is always a reason it will not work. This causes investors to ignore the next big claim.  
    You better get out your checkbook. If not your idea dies with you. Its just the way it is.  
    Personally I doubt your idea will work. Humans love to imagine they are special. This goes both ways on the subject.  
    Those who make the claim want to feel special, and those coming against them with the years of status quo as their proof want to feel special  
    I am not easily convinced. I would say you have a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of convincing me. But that's just me.  
    Those who aren't sure perpetual motion is possible will give you a 1 in 1 billion chance.  
    Can you explain the math for your idea?  
    Or are you just making generalizations based on what you think should happen?  
    The statement about liquid always being in motion and that somehow explains why it has energy, is not going to cut it in the real world.  
    What happens when the liquid stops moving?  
    And this idea that you BEAT Einstein on this one based on your grandfathers intellect and your swimming coach accomplishmemts, is hilarious.  
    The reason you have received no acknowledgement is because you haven't done anything.  
    At least say "I am self taught"  
    "I had good science teachers" means nothing. Again you are trying.tonride the coat tails of what someone else has done.  
    Science teachers do not teach perpetual motion so I would believe you more if you said they were no help.  
    I am going to look at what you wrote.
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2016
    Ken, you just said nothing. seriously, you said nothing. you have proved nothing, and wasted all of our time. provide a scientific argument, so i may clarify things based on the questions that still ramble around in your naive mind.  
    Ken, by crafty i mean, the number of and placement of the tunnels that alleviate the pressure from the main flow, is very complex and way over your head, and will require masters of their fields, something you shouldn't concern yourself with grasshopper  
    ken you also act like Einstein's statement hasn't had an impact when it in fact has, and as i covered, made it where that inventions in this category can not be patented via blueprint, so not only did you say nothing, but you were wrong in things you did utter. I know inertia and gravity has its role to play, thats so obvious i didn't even have to mention it. Please watch some Blues Clues and leave the thinking to the grown ups.  
    Ken, with my comment about crafty, i'm only insinuating that i can not afford to build this on my own, and need the help i'm asking for. But like i said, provide scientific arguments as to why the aspects of my design will falter. What factors will not behave as their elemental properties dictate?
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2016
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2016
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2016
    you claim i'm riding coat tails, when in fact i invented something from scratch that was already invented, then fixed it. You know nothing whatsoever. Your negativity has no foundation, your saying nothing at all thats anywhere adjacent to what i said
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2016
    The math of my idea, is derrr gravity makes things drop, bouyancy makes things rise. All that has to be done is introduce objects smoothly which i came up with a design for that. If you actually want to make a point, you have to address why you think the shapes of my objects come into more resistance, than their rise, and the rise of the air bubbles generate once on the water side, and what they generate on the fall side.
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2016
    By good science teachers i meant i understand molecules in motion, apparently better than you or Einstein. LOL what stops when water stops moving. YOUR AN IDIOT. It's never ever ever going to stop moving, that's 7th grade science. LOL just let the big dawgs handle it
    • CommentTimeSep 21st 2016
    I just couldnt depart your site prior to suggesting that I incredibly enjoyed the standard information an individual supply for your visitors? Is gonna be back often so that you can inspect new posts
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2016 edited
    Sorry, but I cannot believe that everybody is so fooled by the pathetic lies of evil If you only have to put one spark of current into a DC motor, to rotate a 100cm circumference once, and this gives you 100cm of moving Then you run this 100cm of moving belt by a 1cm circumference pulley, with an AC generator attached, wouldn’t that give you 100 cycles/units of AC That’s one spark of DC input returns you 100 units of AC Now,,, try and tell me that you cannot manage to gain one spark of DC current, out of 100 units of AC Diagrams + more info is at
    you can get nnassive announts of rotations of nnini-pulleys = AC electricity  
    fronn the one spark of DC electricity rotating one very large pulley  
    which gives you nnassive voltage + practically no current  
    which is exactly what you need to crank over the large pulley once  
    if you attach a 100cm circumference pulley to a DC motor  
    it only takes one spark of DC current to rotate a DC motor one full  
    this would give you 100cm of moving belt to work with  
    now if you run this length of moving belt past 1to10 mini  
    of one centimeter circumference with AC generators attached to each pulley  
    then you would get 100-1000 units or cycles of AC  
    these are free running AC generators=(as no load is on them)  
    all of these generators are running with zero load = no electricity being used  
    just the fluid friction of the bearings is your only wear or load-type  
    but you could use magnetic bearings + have zero friction  
    so all of these AC generators are just winding up massive voltage  
    which can be accessed as potential = ability to do work = available current in load  
    you have just made your first self powered set of running AC + DC generators  
    that you could tap power off of + the more mini-pulleys with AC generators attached  
    the greater amount of current you should be able to do work with don't you think that you could be able to get one spark of DC current)  
    ( out of the 1000 units of AC electricity that you have for an output)  
    (this would make this unit a self powering mechanism = perpetual motion)  
    (+ this could be producing an unknown amount of AC + DC = PUBLISHED 2001 OR 2002  
    ((( evil spirits were hiding this tech = lies about torque being a problem )))  
    Now comes the bad+scary part of this awesome free energy technology discovery  
    You can easily see just how super simple this AC multiplication technology is  
    so why could not any one of the millions of above average intelligence have discovered this  
    long as soon as AC electricity was Well this is hard positive proof  
    of there being powerful spiritual warfare going on all around + they were winning  
    I would say that these powerful evil forces were winning - if they could hide this from us  
    I happen to be Born Again-(28-11-88) + want this super simple free energy technology known  
    long before the first Door closes for Christ's return in the clouds by or before +  
    This technology is in the Holy Bible = in Ezekiel 1:16  
    where he is describing what a UFO motor looks like while it's running  
    so this technology will eventually lead us to anti-gravity  
    as well as not only speeds approaching the speed of light  
    but also the ability to do 1000 kph vectoring  
    We are warned that no one knows the day nor (Mat 24:36) but it says that we will know  
    when it is near to what? maybe the as we can know when it's"even at the doors"  
    (Mat 24:33) + I heard that in the original Greek it was worded like a command "know that it is near"  
    With this technology the Tribulation Saints can keep warm in our cold Canadian winters  
    even off the power (remember the heat + light of fires would easily give away  
    your position as well as via satellites)  
    notice that Doors are plural - because He show up twice =  
    1) - Rapture = "caught up together with the in the clouds"-(I Thes 4:17)  
    2) - "Glorious Appearing" at end of Tribulation -(Titus 2:13)  
    I DO NOT KNOW IF I BE THAT PROPHET OF THE BUT NOBODY ELSE IS SHOWING ( + there are less than 3 years left before the door shuts + Christ MUST come back ) ( + He has shown me a few Biblically significant things= 'I am" + 2020 Vision ) ( to find out more GOOGLE beliefstoliveby + yolasite = 30 + websites)
    • CommentTimeMar 7th 2017
    you're all crackpots who don't understand thermodynamics, nothing is 100% if you change energy from one form to another you WILL lose some, maybe not much but enough for John diesel to blow his brains out.
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2017 edited
    To the guest from march 7th 2017, We don't understand thermodynamics eh..... thermodynamics' ceiling doesn't even apply is what yall don't get. we are creating energy, how in the world is it a bad thing that thermodynamics indicates we are going to create heat. All that then has to be done is harness it. Not only are you rude, and offer NO ADVICE, you are just regurgitating what we already know we've beaten in debate a thousand times. THEN the next thing that you all will say, well there is no energy at the start, and then i say, you great big bunch of dummies, molecules always move, so models with liquid, are moving significantly enough that again the opponent's views are completely useless. Therefore, it does what yall say it won't, convert energy into energy.
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2017 edited
    Listen, the old scientists made mistakes. You have to come to terms with the fact that there are contradictions that i have brought to light. We can make this, you have my mind on your side now. But i do not have funds or a team. do u understand? . . . . . who am i, im the grandson of a man who decoded enemy messages in the war, & i think like he did. My family line saved lives before, and it will now, but you have to admit what i say has truth.
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2017
    My perpetual motion realized post now has 18,450 views, and still hasn't been debated or supported. . . .....
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2017
    Okay, before I even begin to refute your arguments, let me just say that Einstein was NOT the person who developed the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics; that was Lord Kelvin. A simple Google search would reveal that.

    Also, YOU have not provided any scientific arguments *whatsoever*. Have you performed any sound scientific experiments, like the myriads of scientists over the last two thousand years (which you are blatantly contradicting) have? The only description of your machine you have provided is "liquid never stops moving," which means absolutely nothing. Liquid *does* stop moving, as evidenced by when you freeze it into a solid; the only reason liquid has kinetic energy in the first place is because that energy was given to it from outside sources (or came from the chemical reaction when the liquid is created, in some cases.) If you push on a tub of water to make it move, energy is being transferred from the chemical energy in your food to the kinetic energy in your muscles to the tub to the water.

    It would help to actually understand the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics before saying they are wrong. You said that the Second Law guarantees that heat is created and we just have to harness it. The thing is, the heat didn't just appear out of nowhere; it was converted from another kind of energy (the First Law). When you burn wood, the chemical energy in the wood is converted to heat. In addition, the Second Law provides a limit on the efficiency of any device that converts heat to other useful energy (which in formal terms is called a "heat engine") -- look here: As an example of this, most car engines have a maximum theoretical efficiency of about 40%.

    In conclusion, your arguments are completely untenable. You have done absolutely nothing to disprove Einstein (Kelvin, actually) or the thousands and thousands of experiments which support his theories. I suggest you actually learn about this before you go around spouting nonsense.
Add your comments