Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on Is this a physics discussion or new energy?

Post

Is this a physics discussion or new energy? [closed]

+0
−3

Closed as too generic by Mithical‭ on Oct 7, 2022 at 13:32

This post contains multiple questions or has many possible indistinguishable correct answers or requires extraordinary long answers.

This question was closed; new answers can no longer be added. Users with the reopen privilege may vote to reopen this question if it has been improved or closed incorrectly.

Part 1

Say we have a round water pool, the radius is 10m, and the water depth is 2m.

C is a fixed point:

  • Fixed on the surface of water.
  • Fixed at the center of the pool.

F1 is stable force.

  • Always 1 kg.
  • The direction is always as same as gravity.
  • The target always is C.

W1 is a fixed wave.

  • Is generated by F1.
  • Is the trace of the motion of C.
  • Fixed at the center of the pool.

D1 is the amplitude of W1.

S is the height of the position of C when the water is calm and steady. Currently the S is 2m.

L1 is the smallest height of C in every single cycle. Which is also the lowest point of W1 (each cycle).

H1 is the largest height of C in every single cycle. Which is also the highest point of W1 (each cycle).

D1 + D1 = (H1 - S) + (S - L1)

D1 x 2 = H1 - L1



Stage 1:

After we apply F1 to the still water. We generated the W1. Under certain condition CDN1, we keep applying F1 at the exact same status of every W1. We call this specific status ST1.

Eventually,

Q1. Can we amplify D1 to 1 meter? Please proof it with physics.

Q2. How large the D1 can be finally? Please find the physical formulas.



Stage 2:

Now with add some payload into the system, PL, weight 1000 kgw. The PL would always be floating on the water like a ship, and it is fixed against the edge of the pool.

When the energy of W1 and F1 was transmitted to the edge of the pool, will create another wave, W2. W2 is also the motion track of PL.

D2 is the amplitude of W2.

L2 is the smallest height of PL in every single cycle. Which is also the lowest point of W2 (each cycle).

H2 is the largest height of PL in every single cycle. Which is also the highest point of W2 (each cycle).

D2 + D2 = (H2 - S) + (S - L2)

D2 x 2 = H2 - L2


F2 is a stable force:

  • the direction is always as same as gravity.
  • the target to apply always will be C.

After we apply F2 to the still water. We generated the W1 and W2. Under certain condition CDN2, we keep applying F2 at the exact same status of every W1. We call this specific status ST2.

And eventually,

Q3. In order to make D2 greater th 0, what is the minimum require to F2? Please proof it with physics.

Q4. Is it possible to make D2 1 meter? Please proof it with physics.

Q5. In theory, how large D2 can be? Please find the physical formulas.



Stage 3:

Q6. Eventually, would there be satisfying economical benefit for each cycle of W2?

Please consider the energy requirement of all components of the whole system for each cycle.

And again, please find the physical formula.


If we could reject hypothesis from Q1 to Q6 by physics, then these articles was nothing but some physics discussions. Please quit reading this post.



On the other hand, if we could proof that from Q1 to Q6 were all true. This might be our new energy.



Stage 4:

Q7. Are ST1 and ST2 the same status?

Q8. What are the most efficient CDN1 and CDN2?

Q9. Every single piece of this system can be improved for several times at least. How do we improve these components?



Notes:

This method is a lego block which generate kinetic energy. To transform energy into electricity is another lego block. The form of transform blocks or how to connect generate blocks with transform blocks is the matter of imagination and creativity.


Instead of be leverage of all forms of wars and invasions, the energy of the people's livelihood should be common property for all mankind.


Anyone who use this method has only obligation to obey: Please distribute this method proactively and freely.

In the name of the people's livelihood, there are three information shall be distributed when able.

  1. This method.
  2. Physical formulas.
  3. Improvements.




Part 2

Part 1 is a method to stack small energy to a huge one. With this method, there might be something more could be discussed.


In a low friction environment, round track. A bot B would always move along this track.

When we give F3 to B, and B could move for 2 and half laps. Q10. If we keep applying exact the same F3 to B at same postion in each and every lap. Eventually, could B and F3 provide satisfying economical kinetic energy from the later every lap?


If we trap a light into a designed round plane and keep amplify the energy of that light with same concept as part 1.


Q11. Will there be anything to happen if the energy of that light is really huge?

Q12. Will there be anything to happen if two or more these amplified light collide with or twine around each other?

Q13. Will there be anything to happen if two or more these amplified light with different wavelegth collide with or twine around each other?


Under the same concept,


Q14. What if we replace the light with other wave like materials or energy, such as sound, electricity, particles, or other form of force?

Q15. What if we create the collision or twine with different properties or types of these materials or energy?

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

3 comment threads

x-post https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/728485/stack-waves-is-this-a-physics-discussion-or... (2 comments)
Please read the comnents here. (1 comment)
Contraditory, doesn't make sense, too long to read (3 comments)
Contraditory, doesn't make sense, too long to read
Olin Lathrop‭ wrote over 1 year ago

C is a fixed point, so it can't be both at the center of the pool and on the surface of the water. The center is 1 m below the surface.

F1 is a force, but is specified in units of mass. Even assuming 1g gravity, you can't apply any significant force to the surface of the water (ignoring surface tension effects), and it can't be done at a point. The force is related to the density of water, the depth, and the area it is applied over.

W1 is a wave, but how is that supposed to be generated by a "stable" (fixed ?) force? "Motion of C" makes no sense because C is a "fixed point". Even though its location is ambiguous, it seems intended to be in one fixed location.

This is where I stopped reading. The rest is way too long, and likely as poorly thought out as the constraints.

"New energy", seriously!?

-1 for all the sloppiness. -More if I could due to the hint of perpetual motion in the title.

HolyDamn2.0‭ wrote over 1 year ago · edited over 1 year ago

Please forgive me to fix this reply.

A round pool is a stack of circles so the center of a round pool could be a vertical line in case you haven't noticed yet. And I believe this had answered your W1 and C.

Good point, not exactly at point C. "The center of the manufacture component of F shall be aligned along C". Is this better?

You have some point about the force to C, how about "F is always applied to the water through C"?

When we talked about water waves in real life, I believed you had know these very well already actually.

In stead of physics, I start to have a feeling that we are stuck by words. Of course, I failed to express it correctly, but the point of conversation is to understand the real meaning, not the exact phrase we desire.

Especially for people who had know the meaning very well already.

I am looking forward to be rejected or supported by calculations.

Please prove it by physics, NOT ASSUMPTIONS.

HolyDamn2.0‭ wrote over 1 year ago

Had fixed a bad reply.