Perpetual Motion Machines and Free Energy
Blue_Nose @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:35 am
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Are there websites that debunk specific claims from a scientific standard, and I mean not simply parroting laws?
Have you tried the James Randi website.
The exchange is quite funny - the guy wants to accept the challenge but refuses to let them inspect the workings of his device... then shit hits the fan.
KIRK GUSTUM, Perpetual Motor
dgthe3 @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:06 am
There is a significant difference between the kick from a gun and the impact from the bullet. The largest force felt from guns is the from the gases exiting the barrel.
As for 'fringe science' I support it. But it has to be science. There was the one guy that was lifting several hundred pounds of weight with his legs, claimed he could generate 1.5 hp or something like that. He then grabbed the output shaft (there was a 25 watt input) and couldn't stop it with his bare hands. This is supposed to be proof that his machine harnesses a source of free energy. He also doesn't allow anyone to look too closely at his machine
Blue_Nose @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:36 am
dgthe3 dgthe3:
There was the one guy that was lifting several hundred pounds of weight with his legs, claimed he could generate 1.5 hp or something like that. He then grabbed the output shaft (there was a 25 watt input) and couldn't stop it with his bare hands. This is supposed to be proof that his machine harnesses a source of free energy. He also doesn't allow anyone to look too closely at his machine
:lol: Yeah, I remember seeing that guy doing leg presses and wondering what the hell this had to do with machine designs.
He was the guy that had the voltmeter/ammeter/whatever and claimed that since the needle bouncing back and forth seemed to be in the negative more than the positive it was proof that his machine was charging the batteries.
The kicker for me - the point at which I decided these people don't deserve any attention whatsoever - is when they were discussing the flying machine made by gluing 100s of wings of beetles onto the bottom of a platform they stood on.
dgthe3 @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:58 am
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
The kicker for me - the point at which I decided these people don't deserve any attention whatsoever - is when they were discussing the flying machine made by gluing 100s of wings of beetles onto the bottom of a platform they stood on.
WHAT?!?!?! You don't believe that a device like that flew? You must be part of the conspiracy to keep things like that out of the publics hand.
sasquatch2 @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:31 pm
dgthe3
$1:
There is a significant difference between the kick from a gun and the impact from the bullet. The largest force felt from guns is the from the gases exiting the barrel.
Not really! For every action there is an equal and opposite action.
Both recoil force and bullet energy are measured in ftlbs.
If you succeed in getting in the way of the bullet, that energy is transferred to you.....as kinetic energy and hydrostatic shock. The former hurls you backward and the latter turns your guts to goo.
dgthe3 @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:27 pm
You are very right in using newton to prove this. If I could draw the free body diagrams and write the equations this would be easier. But words will have to do.
When a person gets hit they only feel the impact of the bullet. It only has the momentum imparted upon it when it was fired from the gun. You also feel this same momentum. What the victim doesn't experience is the rocket like plume of gas exiting the barrel pushing against the air, unless you are shooting point blank. I'm sure that you know how spit ball shooters work. Well think of what happens if you were to place your hand directly in front of it then fire. You feel the hit of the wad first, but also the air comming out. Move your hand out all the way and you feel the same impact but none of the air. The exact same thing happens with a gun with the same forces, but different in magnitude.
But anyway, this little discussion is a bit off topic. I forget why I even brought this up in the first place. The overall point in the show was that if a gun doesn't knock you backwards it won't knock the victim backwards.
Blue_Nose @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:38 am
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
dgthe3
Not really! For every action there is an equal and opposite action.
Both recoil force and bullet energy are measured in ftlbs.
The energy lost to the gases exiting the barrel that increase the recoil are not transfered to the object or person being hit by the bullet - only the kinetic energy of the bullet in motion.$1:
There is a significant difference between the kick from a gun and the impact from the bullet. The largest force felt from guns is the from the gases exiting the barrel.
Not really! For every action there is an equal and opposite action.
Both recoil force and bullet energy are measured in ftlbs.
In other words, recoil energy is always lower than muzzle energy.
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
If you succeed in getting in the way of the bullet, that energy is transferred to you.....as kinetic energy and hydrostatic shock. The former hurls you backward and the latter turns your guts to goo.
There's no such thing as "hydrostatic shock". It's a myth.
Blue_Nose @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:08 am
I I:
In other words, recoil energy is always lower than muzzle energy.
whoops... I ment recoil energy is always higher than muzzle energy...
sasquatch2 @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:19 am
Blue_Nose
$1:
There's no such thing as "hydrostatic shock". It's a myth.
Yeah and the myth busters proved that when they substituted a gutted pork carcass for a body.
You obviously have never examined a shot deer or even a ground hog. Small onder you worship the mystical magical molecule.
Blue_Nose @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:30 am
I don't think I ever mentioned mythbusters.
I had to look up "hydrostatic shock" because it's not applicable to a dynamic system such as ballistics. Sure enough, the main thing that comes up are articles explaining why "hydrostatic shock" is a myth.
Tissue is elastic, not fluid, and it can withstand all kinds of shock and vibration.
The True Believers in the "hydrostatic shock" myth often point to the messy soup found inside the chest of deer hit in the lungs as "proof" they are right. But they are really pointing to a major hole in their argument. There isn't any "free" blood in the chest of any mammal: like blood elsewhere, it's in blood vessels.
The lungs are a sort of enormous capillary bed, with millions of small blood vessels lying between the gas-exchange surfaces. Most of the volume of the chest is air. The vast quantities of blood found in the chest cavity of a lung-shot animal weren't there when the shot was fired. The free blood found in the chest after a shooting got there because the bullet damaged the blood vessels running through the area.
The lungs are a sort of enormous capillary bed, with millions of small blood vessels lying between the gas-exchange surfaces. Most of the volume of the chest is air. The vast quantities of blood found in the chest cavity of a lung-shot animal weren't there when the shot was fired. The free blood found in the chest after a shooting got there because the bullet damaged the blood vessels running through the area.
Perhaps this is quite fitting for this thread - people suggesting mythical occurances based on nothing but faulty knowedge.
More Proof
sasquatch2 @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:11 pm
The existance of articles and links is not necessarilly proof......the CO2 AGW myth is proof of that.
The tissue damage from a high velocity bullet literally causes muscle tissue to turn to goo. Observed.
This is why .243 is not popular for deer despite it's ability to stop deer like they were hit by lightening.
30.30 is more popular because, besides punching through more brush, it does spoil as much meat.
Blue_Nose @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:17 pm
$1:
The existance of articles and links is not necessarilly proof
Oh, but your personal claims of observing this phenomenon are? Ha!
sasquatch2 @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:53 pm
Blue_Nose
$1:
Oh, but your personal claims of observing this phenomenon are? Ha!
Certainly! As much as David Suzuki.
ridenrain @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:36 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
There's no such thing as "hydrostatic shock". It's a myth.
Aside from the never-ending quest for "the free lunch", this just jumped out at me.
Please elaborate because this shakes my sad vision (and the whole black rifle conspiracy team) of the world of terminal balistics.
sasquatch2 @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:17 pm
ridenrain
$1:
Please elaborate because this shakes my sad vision (and the whole black rifle conspiracy team) of the world of terminal balistics.
Yeah really! If it wasn't for hydrostatic shock then why, when you whack a chuck with a .222 or .243, do you find his liver hanging on the next thistle.
This likely originated with the CO2 AGW gang.