nay sayers ... 100,000 Euro's Bonus payment

[Ernst]

The prof replies

DEAR FRIEND,

I THOUGHT YOU DID NOT WANT ME TO ANSWER AND THIS THEREASON FOR I DID NOT ANSWER INSTANTLY AND I LEFT FOR MY SUMMER HOUSE WHERE THERE IS NO INTERNET.

THERE IS NO CHANCE FOR YOU TO SAY SOMETHING CORRECT AND ME NOT TO BE AWARE OF


QUALITATIVE ARGUMENTS SO FAR WITH NO QUANTITATIV VALUE, MTHEMTICAL VALUE.

REGARDS

PTP

I will not pursue this any further. If anyone else can translate this reasoning into mathematical formula's and provide the prof with the results, go ahead. I warned him

As for the inertial reference frames, he is still chewing on that one.

Ernst.

[tachyon]

dude seriously by the same reasoning the electron decellerates, when you guide the electron 45 degrees outwards to the negative plate and closer to the positive plate there's the same amount of +/- acceleration going in and going out... now the real problem is how to make it enter in an angle all the time... but that can be fixed by defining a path for the electron and make a spiralling pattern of capacitor plates... NOW TELL ME THAT I'M WRONG

[tachyon]

width of the capacitor plates should be :

w=sqrt( (m*(sqrt(2e/m)(sqrtVc+sqrtVg))^2)/(Vc*e))

Vc voltage of the capacitor plates
Vg voltage of the electron gun

height of capacitor must be greater or equal to width

actually this is wrong for this to gain more energy it has to NOT FOLLOW A CIRCULAR PATH but a different one which accelerates more downwards towards to the positive plate gaining more speed in the y direction than the one it went in with.. got no time now

[Duncan]

[tachyon]

well I was wrong .. it will conserve energy even if you guide it through an angle... as long as what errnst says is correct but I doubt it

[Duncan]

width of the capacitor plates should be :

w=sqrt( (m*(sqrt(2e/m)(sqrtVc+sqrtVg))^2)/(Vc*e))

Vc voltage of the capacitor plates
Vg voltage of the electron gun

height of capacitor must be greater or equal to width

actually this is wrong for this to gain more energy it has to NOT FOLLOW A CIRCULAR PATH but a different one which accelerates more downwards towards to the positive plate gaining more speed in the y direction than the one it went in with.. got no time now

The C-Stack by Cris Paltenghe
sort of makes sense but....

[Allcanadian]

@Ernst

Yep, I already thought so. You do come from a different reality.

Why thank you, this has been my goal for a very long time because as Einstein himself implied, if our reality does not work then we must change it. Such a simple concept and yet somewhere along the way the message has been lost but the result is apparent ... what we are doing is not working. If you need proof simply watch the news for a couple of hours.

So the question remains, should we continue to do what we know does not work or take the left turn at Albuquerque?, I chose the left turn.

You see we all have choices and we can blindly follow others and hope someone somewhere must know what they are doing or we can take matters into our own hands. In any case you are quoting textbook theory using textbook logic and I have been down this road hundreds of times. Thus I already know what you will say before you have said it and the thinking behind it. As such I already know the result and generally choose not to participate because the result is obvious. Our debate will end right back where it started coming full circle as it always does.

AC

[Allcanadian]

@Duncan

I'm quietly confident that in due course what this man says and what he is portraying is going to have a big impact.

I would agree and the whole scenario is quite comical.

Consider that his intent was never to prove anything but simply to make one think.
Now we see very intelligent people who consider this as a challenge to their intellect and hope to disprove it in order to prove themselves. The problem here is that they may be very intelligent but still thinking like the layman.

Does a truly intelligent person need to prove everyone else wrong in order to prove themselves right, tit for tat?. No, I believe the truly intelligent person does not need to prove anything to anyone but simply makes their case and moves on.

I have always found this odd, that seemingly intelligent and responsible adults would need to degrade others to prove themselves. These are not the actions nor thinking of a responsible adult but more that of a child.

In any case I took the Prof's paper as a thought experiment and little more. It was interesting and it made me think and for that I am grateful.

I should also note I find your thoughts refreshing relative to the noise we hear in the forums.

AC

[Allcanadian]

Now on to more constructive thoughts.

The slingshot effect is due to the fact that an inward acting force (gravity) may hold an object in a partial orbit. The object may change direction with no change in it's energy state but cannot change velocity without work being performed. The work component which may accelerate the object is due to the fact that the field is changing and the field in question changes because it is attached to a planet which is moving.

Now if the object is an electron and the applied force is due to charged plates then theoretically we may induce a change in direction but not a change in velocity by the same rules. However this is only true if the field is not changing and generally speaking we have three options, the field is changing in itself in some way or the object associated with the field is moving or both.

So we are left with the question, are the plates free to move and can the field change ... or is it something else we have not fully considered?.

Edit: I should note I have no interest in debating why it cannot work but rather how it could in reality.

AC

[Duncan]

Now on to more constructive thoughts.

The slingshot effect is due to the fact that an inward acting force (gravity) may hold an object in a partial orbit. The object may change direction with no change in it's energy state but cannot change velocity without work being performed. The work component which may accelerate the object is due to the fact that the field is changing and the field in question changes because it is attached to a planet which is moving.

Now if the object is an electron and the applied force is due to charged plates then theoretically we may induce a change in direction but not a change in velocity by the same rules. However this is only true if the field is not changing and generally speaking we have three options, the field is changing in itself in some way or the object associated with the field is moving or both.

So we are left with the question, are the plates free to move and can the field change ... or is it something else we have not fully considered?.

Edit: I should note I have no interest in debating why it cannot work but rather how it could in reality.

AC

Explosion - YouTube

[Allcanadian]

@Duncan
I guess a gravitational slingshot could apply to a pendulum if the shaft replaced the force of gravity and a moving fulcrum the planet.

One thing to consider is that many base their arguement on the most basic examples. We can have a standard fixed support pendulum and the forces and range of motion are known. Now we could use your example with a pendulum with two repelling magnets and the forces and range of motion become more complex. Then we could replace the fixed support of your two magnet pendulum with a flexible wire and with the extra degree of freedom it is said there is no super computer known to mankind that could even remotely predict it's path... one too many variables.

Now we have a problem, the experts say this must happen in this simple case then we add another degree of freedom to the system and nobody can predict what will happen. This is one of the reasons why as a scientific type person I have revisited many simple concepts I believe have been taken for granted. The devil is in the details.

On a side note most all the experts dismissed the notion of a "rogue wave" for centuries and it was only recently that remote ocean sensors were able to prove they existed. Waves of up to 35m (115')have been recorded and to this day they still cannot agree how they form.

I'm not about to jump to any conclusions concerning the claim made by Pappas however it is fun to speculate as to how it could work.

AC

[Ernst]

Anyone who wants to know more about PTP, read his site.

I must admit that he does have a few good points.
It is only the way he tries to explain it, that I can not agree on.

I am not going to spend more time on this, and I do not believe anyone will ever get money from this man even if you do proof him wrong.
Good luck to anyone who would like to give it a try!

Ernst.


-------------
I felt the need to soften this post a little bit.
PTP pi$$ed me off, but I believe now it may have been a communication problem.
I will leave it here. There are more important things for me at the moment.

[Allcanadian]

@Ernst

I am not going to spend more time on this, and I do not believe anyone will ever get money from this man even if you do proof him wrong.
Good luck to anyone who would like to give it a try!

That is a very familar line of thought, trying to take money from another person by trying to prove them wrong and degrade them in the process. As well I can see why a person should dismiss everything when there is no money to be made. I believe if we had more people just like you the world would be a much better place.

Don't get me wrong, I like money as well as anyone I'm just not willing to sell my soul or integrity to get it.

AC

[Ernst]

@AC,
Pretty sure that one "like me" is more than enough!


Ernst.

[tachyon]

well I found a way to make more energy.. by using a magnetic field and extending movement of the particle in the third dimension... it's no doubt it will make more energy.. when the particles is on the way out of the capacitor the magnetic field will exert a force enough to seperate it from the positive plate more in the z direction