Re: Thanks for Patent help.

In article <df1vha$anq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, nicksanspam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Doug Miller <spambait@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>>>...The reciprocating cylinder design is inherently less efficient --
>>>>*considerably* less so, in fact -- than a conventional piston engine
>>>>for one simple reason: the mass of the reciprocating parts is far higher,
>>>>and therefore correspondingly greater energy is wasted in reversing their
>>>>direction 'x' times per second. It simply *can't* be more efficient
>>>>than a conventional design.
>>>
>>>Sure it can, with good bearings and balancing.
>>
>>Not without violating the laws of thermodynamics, it can't. It simply takes
>>more energy to reverse the direction of a moving two-kilogram mass than to
>>reverse the direction of a one-kilogram mass moving at the same velocity.
>
>It takes no energy, with proper counterbalancing.

"No energy"? Absolute nonsense. F = ma, remember? Isaac Newton figured that
out around five hundred years ago. Think about it for just half a moment: if
you were right, and no energy at all were required to reverse the direction of
motion of a moving object, then construction of a perpetual motion machine
would be trivial.

And counterbalancing has nothing to do with it. Moving the balance
mass requires energy, too. The more mass you wish to set in motion (or keep in
motion), the more energy it requires to do so. That's basic high school
physics.
>
>You seem to enjoy vaguely referring to these "laws of thermodynamics" :-)

You seem not to have even a vague acquaintance with them, to say nothing of
Newton's laws of motion.
>
>How much energy is required to reverse a seesaw direction with a perfect
>bearing and perfect springs under each end? Does it depend on the weight
>of the people?

Of course it depends on the weight of the people. The force required to move a
body at rest, or to alter the speed or direction of a body already in motion,
is directly proportional to the mass of that body. This has been well known
for centuries.

And where are you planning to get these mythical perfect bearings and perfect
springs?


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More evidence of negative curvature
    ... >> That mass goes in but energy comes out? ... That of mass breaking down into ... > There is no universal reference frame, but a reference frame is an ... > measured in terms of their motion. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: No infinite energy needed for lightspeed
    ... That would correspond to the motion reflecting ... W is energy transformation ... means finite mass still. ... Actually I learned classical physics better than the relativistic ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: E = 1/2mv^2
    ... Any kind of energy should involve mass and motion. ... more objects at constant velocity wrt each other. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: No infinite energy needed for lightspeed
    ... That would correspond to the motion reflecting ... W is energy transformation ... means finite mass still. ... Actually I learned classical physics better than the relativistic ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: E = 1/2mv^2
    ... Any kind of energy should involve mass and motion. ... momentum is another property of a physical system. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)