To all the good ppl out there who know physics(i don). How feasible are the claims on this site?
http://www.thewebspert.com/cresswell/
relief my troubled mind
I haven’t read the whole thing, because there is a lot of stuff on there. A lot of it is very poorly explained. He mischaraterises stuff, and then says “Now I know how stupid this is”. It appears, on first glance, to be a collection of misunderstandings, hypocrisy, and scientific strawmen.
For example, he shows the flaws in bomb calorimetry by saying:
But then he goes and suggests perpetual motion gyroscope engines (which lead me to think maybe he left something out of his calculations there…).
He says:
So, apparently, conservation of energy is bunk. But I’m having a lot of trouble making sense of ‘resonant coupling’ or whatever. He’s not significantly more eloquent than the Timecube guy.
I think I’ll let the pros handle this one though, unless I can figure out what he’s talking about enough to find his flaws. I’m guessing his approach is one of baffling us with boule, so that we ignore his rants, and then he can claim we’re just brainwashed Newtonian sheep.
I’m off to make breakfast. (First I’ll cook the eggs with heat pulled from resonanly coupling them with the stove, then I’ll unscramble them by, uh, magic.)
Yes, it’s a load of crap. Quite a large section of it is not just wrong, it’s also meaningless.
As far as I can make out what point’s the author is trying to make, he says that quantum theory allows several kinds of perpetual motion engines shown (all of which BTW have nothing to do with any quantum theoretical scales - all misunderstood classical mechanics, electricity and thermodynamics).
The pseudoscientific claims do not merit discussion - they would need a lot of work even understanding what, exactly, the author is asserting in terms of physics.
Simple refutal of this site: if your claims are true, where are the $millons you have made by selling the energy output of your engines?
I haven’t read it in detail, but as a general rule of thumb if there’s some simple thought experiment that all scientists refuse to see, and would change physics as we know it, it’s bollocks.
Also, if the first major assertion is nonsense, it might not be worth reading the rest.
The first assertion in “A most fundamental error” is
The second sentance of the first hit on google for “laminations eddy currents” is “The purpose of using a laminated core is: The laminations can be insulated from one another, which prevents (reduces) the flow of eddy currents in the core.”
OK, maybe most people don’t know this, but anyone who remembers physics lesson over the age of 14 probably does. It’s not like it’s an undiscovered secret.
Shall we try the second assertion?
Well, it’s your turn to google. But very few obvious things remain unquestioned.
Tune in next week for a continuation of “Shade’s bollocks lessons” 
-“Consider the phenomena of light. Only light can travel at the speed of light. It logically follows that if any mass is accelerated to the speed of light, it will become light. This seems to be the only way to explain how and why the engine examples are possible. It also accounts for the Bomb calorimeter electromagnetic flash emission. A simple law could be called THE CONSERVATION OF MASS EQUILIBRIUM. An essential co-existence of mass and light.”
Now,I don’t know about you, but I don’t think that this makes any sense. Someone has apparently never heard of the general theory of relativity, despite the fact that he use E= MC2 to proove half of his ideas. Hes using logic similar to hollywood film producers… “Sean Connery was in alot of good movies, hence, if we put him in extraordinary league of gentlemen, that will automatically be a great movie.” And we all know how that situation worked out.
The author of our website is assuming that mass can be accelerated to the speed of light, which it cannot, because that would take infinite energy. It’s not that difficult of a concept, really. Mass = energy, so as you acquire energy (kinetic energy or speed in this case) you gain mass. At a certain point you reach an asymtote on the graph of energy input versus speed. That point is at the speed of light.
Odd… he’s in a couple different places on the web
He’s apparently a legitimate scientist in the UK.
Here’s one of his (group) papers
He’s also born again
and yet his perpetual motion website has all the regular looney toon trappings like lots of CAPITALIZED LETTERS for emphasis and garbled syntax telling everyone why the accepted thermodynamic paradigm IS A BIG SCAM.
Truly odd. His resume doesn’t really fit with nutjobbery. I think this may be an over the top whoosh for the amusement of his peers and and students.
Of course on second thought there may be more than one physics inclined Alan Cresswell in the UK and they do have different email addresses, so never mind.
Judging from the photograph of the legitimate scientist Alan Cresswell, and the fact that the perpetual motion site mentions the author attending technical college in the Fifties, I think it’s likely we’re dealing with two Alan Cresswells here, one a real scientist, one, errrr, not.
Ever thought it’s a troll, designed to wind up the likes of StraightDopers?
The writing style of the website makes it sound like he might be manic, as is on the manic phase of a bipolar cycle.
I once spent a few months living with a bipolar man in the same apartment. He was highly paranoid, grandeose(sp), lacked basic logic skills, and wrote extremely long letters to people explaining how they were all wrong about some imaginary defects, with strange analogies to war, and chess, and other random things. The garbage, accusations, and over the top claims on that website make me almost positive he/she is manic.
Maybe the OP was but the website is the current topic, and I doubt it was written just for us. If it was written by the OP, then it belongs in the trolling-hall-of-fame.
Well, i got the above website from somewhere in this place…
http://groups.msn.com/Physics/general.msnw?action=get_threads
Theres so much controversial stuff in there i wonder where it actually fit in from.
I didn’t even bother visiting those websites because judging from the postings, this seems like another crackpot (or even fraudulent) scheme claiming a “discovery” which contradicts all previous laws of physics and will revolutionize the way we live … blah blah blah. Also judging from the postings, the author of the article has an obsession with the bomb calorimeter.
I’m guessing this is similar to the “scientific” work of John Keely (19th century) and Joseph Newman (20th century). Use Google to fing out more about these scientific “visionaries”. (I believe Newman is still alive by the way)
As the author of the subject website may I say how very unwise it was for you to come for advice among the clearly retarded chozz potts that infest this forum.
They are mere serial baby forum typists and all of them have a future far, far behind them. They know what to think but none of them will ever know ‘how’ or ‘why’. They are all damned for a lonely street and empty rice bowl.
They will never cut it and should shut it. Leave it to those who can and will.
Oh, just shut-up, why don’t you?
It’s hard to believe that you’re the umm… ah… genuis that put that hilarous website together. I think you’re a wannabe troll just feeding on the real Alan Cresswell’s sterling reputation as VISIONARY PHILOSOPHER and TRUTH MECHANIC.
Made my point didn’t I. Took 76 seconds for the two top baby serial typists to pop up and prove it. Please leg it. You have saturated my stats and ruined my feedback to important people that can hack it. Bloody kids. Get back to skool fast and clear the air waves
If you did write that site and it wasn’t a parody, seek medical attention.
The thing is there are about a million crackpots ou there with varying degrees of physics education, putting forward their GUT, Quantum gravity, etc, theories, what distinguishes you from them?
Well, hello there, Janus20. You might notice that I am a resident of the UK, as are some of the other clearly retarded chozz pots around here … You know, my old physics teacher was a great one for giving practical demonstrations of physical principles: do you, by any chance, have any practical way of demonstrating the truth of your theories? If so, can we have a look? I don’t know about anyone else, but I would think a demonstration of a working perpetual motion machine would be well worth the price of a Super Saver to Birmingham … how about it?