Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!
Those trains use magnetism to reduce friction further. They do indeed run off an energy source otherwise, you can see the transmission lines from the grid it's hooked up to above them, in most cases. In the others, it's usually between the train and the line it hovers above, which can be harder to spot. Again, if they were generating energy out of nowhere, they'd be used to create electricity, not transport people. They are remarkably efficient, and a lot of that is due to the reduction in friction their design allows. Reduction, not elimination.
I probably described/worded things incorrectly. English Euphemisms are over-powered. Especially the Legalese. Anyway, yes, such systems like Mag-Lev are certainly very efficient. Perhaps calling it self-generating, over-unity, free-energy, may be inaccurate, according to conventional definition. I am one of those cheap-skates who dislikes spending money on the same thing in perpetuity, such as food, electricity, etc., therefore, I look for ways to produce such resources "free" for myself even if only in terms of not having to spend dollars/currency if I need to obtain more to eat or use or consume.
Related to the question for "source" behind what I am referring to in terms of efficient energy use/conversion/generation/transformation/etc., and trains, I cannot go over every single source I have possibly gone over for the last decade, but I did find an interesting recent result on a particular Mag-Lev and how it came to be developed and "perfected" such that it would be able to account for the weight of the passengers so as to not de-rail from over-capacity (done via a type of hydraulics-system). I thought I kept it in book-marks but I do not seem to be able to locate it it for reason.
You must be registered to see the links
(You may not necessarily agree with the semantics of the title as the uploader is a Русское inventor but it's titled : Self powered urban electric railway charged from solar PV covered open air tunnels)
Things like "Hydrogen Generators" (running via water as its source of fuel) have been patented before. This is one example. I have seen in news reports of inventors showing off their gas/oil-independent inventions only to later learn that "government agencies" end up confiscating and destroying the labs of numerous scientists/inventors. Anyway, from what I understand about patents, one of the sources that made mention of patents stated that patents are not given out unless the patent works as described. Here is one for a Hydrogen Generator...
You must be registered to see the links
Here is what comes up when "over-unity" has been used as the search-term...
You must be registered to see the links
Here is a "patent" that is described as a "Self powered end of train unit"
You must be registered to see the links
I 'get' that you are all trying to say that nothing creates/generates its
own energy. That basically means that everything is a holistic-system. Boy does that remind me of the scam of big-pharma and its over-promotion of neuro-toxic psychotropics (they seem to hate anything to do with holistic-health or holistic medical-nutrition). Anyway, the case I am trying to make, revolves around being able to use the accumulated empirical-knowledge of science/technology where it IS possible to create/produce
holistic-systems that can provide all of the necessary energy/electricity/food/etc., that anybody could possibly want to use within an entire life-time and
only require a
minimal amount of work/maintenance, even if you are getting/converting the energy from "somewhere" (from gravity?). Like I have mentioned before, dams can be constructed, creating a "perpetual motion" from a technology/man-made water-fall. The water-fall has to get
its "motion" from
somewhere, too, but where does
that get
its energy from, unless the answer given will be something like "gravity" provides its
own energy ? Weak Force (responsible for decay), Strong Force (responsible for resisting decay), Gravity (I do not particularly believe in the conventional explanation on this), Electro-Magnetism (everyone should be familiar with this already), amongst which Gravity is apparently the least-understood.
As for the mars missions and their seeming battery life, you will notice the solar generators on nearly every item NASA has shipped off the planet. If you look into those that don't, I'm sure you will find mention of alternative sources, such as the nuclear power you suggested. Since both of these -generate- electricity (From an outside source or a atomic reaction, neither of which is free or limitless, before you try to point that out), the -capacity- of their systems does not have to be very large at all.
The issue I have with using the word "insultation" involves the fact that most insulation I am familiar with is intended and designed for
trapping heat
within, rather than keeping heat out, unlike putting those giant automobile sun-glasses against your wind-shield on a sunny day to prevent that green-house effect. I get that radiation can be reflected (tin-foil hats are fun, I even put them around my nano-medicines, may start covering more of my stuff with tin-foil). I have witnessed many a clueless college student use the public microwaves, leaving the tin foil around their food or metal spoon in their cups, resulting in rendering said microwaves inoperable. I know to take that stuff out if I find that my food/drink is still cold after I check on it and find that it's still cold even after having been in the microwave for 30 seconds. The other people I have seen using microwaves though...
Anyway, yes, I looked up photos and stuff of the ISS. What I find really only looks like CGI. I am looking for
actual photos (like detailed close-up shots such as if I were to photograph my house for example). Better yet, video-footage would be even better, and not the currently existing footage. What I need is a "grand tour" from one end to the other end, you know, such as if you were to take a cam-corder into a big house or mansion, starting the recording from when you enter the door, then move from one room to another, through each door, without cutting out footage to skip from one room to another. A "continuous" recording will be enough to satisfy me where they are moving from one section to another section, showing the doors/chambres being opened, then going down all the way through all of the corridors.
The reason I ask this is because the currently available footage can be filmed inside of a plane in a Zero G Dive, but if they can just go through a few doors without any video-editing, continous, raw, unedited footage, then at least I would be able to see that going through the door does not end up in a cockpit or back of an air-line. Such an example can be seen here...
You must be registered to see the links
(Although I am not entirely certain/convinced or not as to whether the footage of the plane being shown to be flown in the sky is necessarily from another plane or helicopter or was just CGI'd in for demonstration-purposes)
I'm interested in what you mean, exactly, by a "hot-spot".
That is the description that is given by the uploaders/flat-earthers.
why on Earth are you assuming that the ages of the Earth and universe are correct if you question its shape? Why isn't the government/Illuminati/Elders of Zion/whatever lying about that as well?
I am not assuming, and I DO in fact, question the age. Not to mention the fact that the "distance to the sun" has actually "changed" within the college text-books depending on which year you go back, and if that was not strange enough, even "the speed of light" has been discovered to not be as constant as what the current-day academic text-books tell you (Source : Rupert Sheldrake, whom I respect as a scientist/biologist who actually does his own homework/experiments, rather than solely regurgitating book-learned knowledge [from the "TED Talk" that caused much controversy surrounding Sheldrake]). I am just going to call that shadow-government/illuminati/etc. stuff the NWO since they have even come out in public and talked about having a real chance at a NWO.
Bicycles:
-My- example was not a generator at all, originally. My example was about one person having so much trouble -moving- twelve other people on bicycles that your legs would give out before any generators were even installed. I added them into the second post to continue with the 'how much power would be outputted?' line of thought relating to your original analogy, the wind turbines. Which i noticed you have not attempted to dispute.
I am not disputing your example of lots of energy being used to move heavy objects. What I
am disputing is that your "design/example" has a
completely different
context that you are looking to move a whole bunch of other heavy objects attached to an already heavy object.
Perhaps showing this footage of a hamster then describing it from there would be able to give a better example of what I would choose to design...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkNTAiWX8g0&fmt=18
You can see that the wheel is connected to an axis which spins a generator that lights up the LED. Now let's say that the axis is extended and connected to another LED, and another LED, and another LED, and another LED, this way, you are only using one rotating source-point in order to power up multiple LEDs, and is the basic principle behind the "leverage" idea for powering multiple generators with only one rotation. One wheel could also be connected to another wheel then connected to another and another, all on the same axis, sure, but that would seem silly to have multiple hamsters running on different wheels even if each of the wheels are connected to the same axis just to power one single LED.
As for the ratio of moving vs unmoving bicycles capable of generating electricity...(snip)...They would produce less energy, as a lot of the energy you are putting into pedalling would be turned into motion, not electricity.
We do not create energy, nor are we limitless sources or repositories for such. If we were, we could pedal bicycles forever and actually generate limitless electricity for someone else to use.
Momentum as you seem to think of it is false...(etc.)...Momentum does not grant free energy, it's just the energy you put into it being expended over time.
This feels like it's getting into too much semantics. Why can motion not be converted into energy/electricity as with the example of the hamster lighting up an LED ? I am sure that we can all at least concur that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only converted, without running into confusing gymnastics with semantics (motion is a form of energy, I think it can be considered that anyway, electricity should be able to be regarded as a form of energy, heat also being a form of energy, etc). I see energy all around us and no reason why it cannot simply be harnessed in extremely efficient manners (such to the point of self-sufficiency where I feel like calling it free-energy even if conventional-definition says it's impossible).
My point is, while friction can be reduced, it cannot be eliminated.
Sure, I won't disagree with that, mainly because of air-viscosity.
You now state that the same cameras you own yourself can go three or four times that time limit as well.
I don't usually do long-term-filming so the camcorders did not come to mind originally. Digital cameras are the main things I use due to needing to photograph a lot of products in detail to have images of all this too much stuff I need to sell off.
Temperature:
Those were two videos i found in a single search with two terms on youtube, im sure you can find clearer videos with more effort. My point with the foot was that 1200 Celsius is most certainly over the failure point of both foot and sandal, and yet the man was fine. I'm certain the sandal suffered some damage, but whatever. From what I know of electronics, and you may know this better than me, there is little you can do to recover electronics once they have reached that failure point. Most damage is quite irreperable.
The reason I responded to this part was because exposure for a brief fraction of a second is not the same as constant "orbiting" exposure for days and weeks or even months or years on end. I have already seen footage of men walking on molten-rock without being scathed. Turned out that the properties of the rocks
themselves were such that, due to being porous, the
actual temperatures of walking on the rocks were not nearly has
hot as it
appeared.
Hence you protect them. Inside a suit with yourself, as in my second video, or self contained, which would likely be more effective, as it is specialized for the task. Which you seem to now confirm, given the lengthening of the time needed to reach the failure point in your latest post from 'Instantly' to 'If left there for a day'. Venting of heat has already been mentioned, likely with more accuracy and tact than i can manage myself, so I will simply suggest another option: Don't leave it there all day? Your camcorders can run for to hours, you have already mentioned, why not retrieve them after that much time?
I use 120mm heat-sinks for my computers since the normal heat-sinks they come with tend to be inadequate for how much I work my computers' processors so I am thus quite familiar with heat-dissipation (due to having frequent problems in the past with over-heating). The hazmat-looking suit video was questionable due to looking more likely to be blue/green-screened than a genuine dip into a genuine volcano pit. I know you're trying to say that it's possible to touch a heat-source without frying instantly like an ant would if a magnifying glass were used to concentrate a laser of sun-light, and I do not disagree, but I was referring to prolonged exposure, rather than doing stunts like running through a bon-fire.
Hot Spots:
That is an interesting video, to be sure. Have you ever heard of 'reflections'?
The sun is simply reflecting light off the top of the clouds. You can see this phenomenon yourself at night, when sufficiently bright lights are shone onto the bottom of the clouds, and you can see the clouds match whatever colour the light shone onto them is. The light is directed upwards, if it were not reflecting off anything it struck, clouds included, then it would simply not reach your eyes at all. I learned this in grade school, well before the more complicated things universities and colleges teach.
Certainly. Are you saying that the clouds are shaped in such a manner that they are causing a concentration of light into one specific spot or region at the top of the clouds? Also, the video-title indicates an altitude of 20 miles up into the sky, but are you saying that there are other clouds below the above clouds where the sun is reflecting from the below clouds to the above clouds? For it would be difficult to believe that these reflections would come from the earth's surface and still have that level of brightness after that kind of a distance. How is the sun-light going through the above clouds in order to bounce off the lower clouds to create a hot-spot on the above clouds unless there are holes somewhere for the sun to go through the above clouds to reach the below clouds ?
