Magical Wind Power

“Wind Turbine Coupled with Perpetual Motion

model will be constructed to apply our idea on a wind turbine, last we started tests on both a normal wind turbine and a wind turbine with a perpetual motion blades and observed the results, which led us to conclude that perpetual motion can be applied on wind turbine and have a better results depending on the design.”

Wind Turbine Coupled with Perpetual Motion | IEEE Conference Publication | IEEE Xplore

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Magical Wind Power

  1. arn says:

    Co2 will most probably be the thing that will eventually drive the perpetual motion when everything else fails – either as coal or gas.
    And considering co2’s new magic properties it should be the one thing for a perpetuum immobile.

  2. William says:

    The introduction states that perpetual motion in the form of a “magic wheel” first appeared in 8th century Bavaria but friction caused it to stop eventually. Well yeah. Since that time however we know that “scientists” have developed technology that overcomes the friction problem and have created a diesel-powered perpetual motion machine (PMM) which keeps wind turbines idling in very cold weather. Which begs the question..why not just use the PPM to generate electricity rather than erect these hideous bird-chopping monstrosities? I’m certain this paper concludes that “more research is needed”. And this sci-fi nonsense was cited in four other papers. Astounding

    • conrad ziefle says:

      So they lie and fool the innumerate and scientifically deficient public, by saying that the perpetual motion machine (PMM) is POWERED by diesel, but PMM means it needs no external power source? In simple terms, they mean that when you get large enough mass rotating on near fictionless bearings then, it can rotate a long time without external energy being added to the system. BUT they don’t say how much money must be spent to achieve these near frictionless systems, nor how long they will maintain that state before wear and tear introduce more friction.
      Is Hunter Biden a major stakeholder in this technology?
      Perhaps he and Al Gore?
      And as William said, if you have PMM, then why do you need the turbines. However, like typical Marxists, they are using terms intended to blind the ignorant public. They know that they don’t have PPM machines. They just want people to believe that they’re high priests of voodoo, and to hand over large amounts of money to them.
      The publishers of the IEEE need to be taken out and put in pillories, along with the professors of the university where these kids were trained.

      • arn says:

        If you have PMM and decide to waste its ‘endless’ potential by using its energy for a windmill
        the perpetuum aspect is being lost and wasted as a siignificant part of the energy is being lost during the transfer to the windmill.

        Throwing good energy at bad bad energy to make bad energy look good with the use of energy which is being demonized
        is not only illogical and perverted but also inefficient.

  3. Thomas Luke says:

    I would like to invest in this exciting technology but only if I qualify for government grants and subsidies.

  4. Jeff Jones says:

    The majority of what passes for science is a joke. Spontaneous emergence of life, climate change, string theory, etc. The miracle is when some truth manages to escape from the ‘scientific community’.

  5. Presumably the fund holders are ignorant enough to sponsor this nonsense. A potential project which is in a permanent state of ‘not quite there yet’ is a potential gravy train, in a permanent state of requiring additional funds. If we can get away with the hogwash of AGW, there is probably no upper bound to the crap which will get government funding. Why give a sucker an even break?

  6. oeman50 says:

    I was once asked to listen to a proposal for an invention that generated power isothermally, the heat sink and source were at the same temperature. Engineers know that is impossible, like perpetual motion machines. I told the inventor, a degreed engineer, that his scheme violated Carnot’s Law, which says a temperature difference is required for heat to flow. He said, “Exactly!” I put down my pen and took no more notes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *