----- Original Message ----- From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009 10:36 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Latest from Mylow
> Harry > > >> MJ: More seriously, 36 hours is no big feat, a simple pendulum > can run > >> much longer than that while swapping potential energy with kinetic > >> energy, just like magmos do. > > > I think such a pendulum would have to swing higher and higher > when it > > first starts to run for the comparison to be valid. > > > There are standard oscillators which do increase in frequency before > eventually fading. > > Google: "Tibetan bowls" or "singing bowls". > > These are oscillators not gainful, yet some will "sing" for 20 > minutes after > being struck once (reportedly) and will gain in pitch - thus the > "singing".That is surprising. > > When I say "not gainful" I mean that they do decay over time, so > they are > not self-sustaining. > > ...but AFAIK - and as I have posted before on a number of > occasions, over > the decades, no one has ever been able to do a *net* energy audit > of a > strong natural oscillator, to compare the total P-in to total P-out. > > IOW it is possible, if not likely - for many natural phenomenon to be > slightly OU, but nevertheless not self-sustaining, due to very slight > Casimir input at the molecular level, for instance. > > Jones > Great commentary! I take from this that the capacity to be self-sustaining is limited by the design question: how long should that capacity persist? , and not by some fundamental law. Harry
