Talk:Perpetual motion/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 2 March 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

Reactionless drives, space, mass movement[edit]

There are a few situations whereby moving a mass in one direction will result in a net force, though the realistic effect is to 'precess' your orbit. Essentially, when on one side of the orbital body, you move the mass 'up', which has the net result of shifting your orbit slightly in the opposite direction. You then wait until the antipode (or another appropriate part of the orbit, depending on the effect you are seeking), and shift the weight 'down'. As you have orbited around the body, you have also rotated, resulting in another 'up' movement, which slightly adjusts the orbit and so on. Yes, it would be a very small effect, but in space, a small effect adds up over time. 14.2.84.60 (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Fraudulent?[edit]

"Any claim of perpetual motion is fraudulent on its face". The Laws of Thermodynamics are a result of observation and experiment. They are "true" because everything that has been built or designed or observed seems to obey them. Apart from this overwhelming evidence, there is no "theorical" reason why they MUST be true (*). A perpetual machine would be nothing more and nothing less than an experiment falsifying one of the Laws, and as such it would be welcome by the scientific and technical community. Still, don't open if a self-identified perpetual machine designer knocks at your door. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 05:52, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

(*)At least in mechanics, I don't know about the Laws in other more scientific fields.
I agree, especially as I had read the article lately. The "assumption" that any such machine automatically voided "Laws" of physics that we have have never observed to be false, is obviously suspect. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:40, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
Actually, the first law of thermodynamics (and other laws) are a consequence of Noether's theorem. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 15:09, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Pseudo-Science?[edit]

>"Any claim of perpetual motion is fraudulent on its face".

That is an axiomatic claim, and only supported by heresay testimony. There is, as you correctly identify a very high probability that claims of over-unity devices are fraudulent. A confidence trickster's gold mine! We can speculate whether in 1100 C.E. when the indian astronomer and mathematician Bhaskara describes a perpetuum mobile made of a wheel with containers attached to its rim, partly filled with mercury, was also one of these con-artists. The Royal Executioner would know how to deal with him! if caught out. Gold, though massive, actually floats on mercury, so would be ideal for testing "The brachistochrone problem", which was posed by Johann Bernoulli in Acta Eruditorum in June 1696, and solved by both Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Sir Issac Newton. If angular momentum is preserved. we have elegant proof that it is! then the brachistochrone curve allows the fastest route for the quicksilver to pass from one side to the other. This corrected Galileo Galilei's claim that a semi-circle was fastest.

It was Galileo Galilei who opposed the predominant aristotelian dogma (horror vacui) and introduced a combination of mathematical theory and experiment, today referred to as "scientific method". Horror vacui ca. 300 v.Chr. was the foundation stone of Hermann Helmholtz's 1848 proposition that underpins his "conservation of energy" principle. He was a Young Medical Doctor aged 26 at the time. He did not say "Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics, a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible." as we do 'circulus in probando' today! His presentation to the Berlin Physical Society, reasoned that lack of success in constructing a PMM. persuaded him that some natural impediment prevented a PMM. and so consequently formulating his proposition as the 'Principle of Energy Conservation'.

The 'Bhaskara' quicksilver wheel, in my personal view probably works! A nice challenge for M.I.T. and D.A.M.T.P. (Dept. of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics. Cambridge) I was their Visitor ca 1983/4 and later assisted Steven Hawking on his "Brief History of Time" (as the stand-in idiot!) Axioms, however persuasive, must always give way to fundamental laws. The physics of momentum and inertia have priority. we may not yet have discovered the 'Higgs' particle thought to explain 'inertia' but we are close! If a curve similar to the famous 'brachistochrone' curve can be calculated, such that a multiplicity of mercury filled glass tubes (bent into that curve's profile), might overbalance a wheel due to uneven Euler Forces, as the quicksilver pendulum-like oscillations flow through these bent glass tubes? i.e. in such a way that maximum Euler Force on one side coincides with minimum Euler Force on the other, and naturally "Vica-Versa" a stale mate! (The variable 'radius' of this hypothetical 'Bhaskara Curve' would periodically alter the angular velocity, allowing for a different frequency of oscillation on opposing sides of the 'Bhaskara Wheel'... then all that's needed is a length of velvet ribbon, borrowed from a bonnie straw hat, perhaps a pretty undergraduate punting with an escort under the Cam-bridge? and with a hot iron to smooth the velvet 'nap' in one direction, we can very easilly incorporate a velvet ratchet with a velvet uni-directional brake pad. or alternatively, dismantle a fishing real. (When the wheel wants to see-saw, tough luck! the ratchet stops it!;?) The great Bhaskara. may in time be entirely vindicated? I doubt a mathematician of his stature would swallow a circular 'circulus in probandum' logical fallacy "Hook Line & Sinker!"

Thanks for the prompt response, and sorry for my long reply!:?(... Fraud! GOOD POINT!;?) it happens too often!?! [Alastair Carnegie 9th July 2008]

Um.... Gelileo would probably not be mentioning Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics. You do know Galileo died one year before Newton was even born, right?
Also, please sign your posts with 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~ --Gulik 14:06, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Silver[edit]

Nom for silver. ТyYarrr 21:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A bit more padding in the references first, perhaps. ADK...I'll bang your thumbtack! 11:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
If anyone can find a decent answer to the question "would Boyle's Flask work with a superfluid?" they can win an internets. ADK...I'll receive your oak! 11:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

How about this.[edit]

I know that this doesn't really "create" free energy but I came across this idea the other day. My neighbour has installed an Air heat pump. Basically this takes ambient air heat, extracts it, concentrates it and expels cold air.

It is claimed to produce three units of energy for every unit used. This sounds suspiciously like "too good to be true". Especially if one considers the possibility of closing the system and using the output to power the input, although there would probably be some losses in the process.

But it still sounds like the closest thing to perpetual motion that I've heard of. Again, I understand that it's "just" moving energy from one place to another and no actually "creating" it but it surprised me. Thoughts?--Weirdstuff (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If you were to close the system, I highly doubt the output would be greater than the input. But I'm not a physicist. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, claimed three out for every one in. If that's true you'd be able to tolerate some pretty big inefficiencies. But even if it's not presently practically possible it certainly sounds plausible in theory. But it's the whole concept that I find a bit doubtful - to close to "too good to be true" as I said before.--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
You're basically talking about air conditioning in reverse. Yes, it consumes at least as much energy because the only way to "extract" heat from ambient air like that is through a compression/decompression cycle. The ratio talked about in the WP article is an efficiency ratio used for heat pumps - it's how much energy it can extract from the "hot" air per unit of electric that it consumes. That this is above 1 is obvious because otherwise the heat pump wouldn't be doing its job, and you may as well have used that electric to power a normal heater. It's not even close to perpetual motion. Scarlet A.pngssholeModerator 20:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
That was my feeling at first. I figured that, the best possible case, the output could only be equal to the input. But my neighbour has spent some three grand on the installation and claims it works. He also claims the same one in three out ratio. Though it's less efficient on colder days.
This is really a cheap variant of the geothermal heat pump which takes the heat from low ground as its source (as opposed to using traditional "hot" rocks).
Although they are more expensive systems to install they claim an efficiency of 3 to 6. But I'm still wondering about using the output to power the input. --Weirdstuff (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Though it's less efficient on colder days. Obviously, as it's ambient air where the energy is coming from. Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator 11:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Well. Duh!--Weirdstuff (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Scarlet A.pngpatheticModerator 12:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The point I am making is that this works (or claims to work) by taking in ambient air, cooling it, and in the process obtaining more energy than that which was input as electrical energy. It is (or is claimed to be, or is sold as providing) a method for heating water at a third of the cost which it would otherwise cost.

If this is true (and I'm saying if) then it would seem to be theoretically possible to power the thing off itself and thus get something which certainly would look like a perpetual motion machine in that it would withdraw ambient energy which could be used to continuously perform work with no input other than ambient air.

I was, and still am somewhat sceptical, of this; but the product is on sale in many places (though nowhere is it suggested that it could power itself, that's my own theoretical extension.)

I have not been able to find any site on the net which claims that the product is a fake. This site for example claims that they can provide "4 times the amount of energy they consume".

If RW feels that these claims are impossible then perhaps this technology needs its own article debunking it.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's analogous to saying that the energy required to transport coal from a mine to a power station is less than the output of the power station thanks to burning the coal, ergo it's like perpetual motion. The energy is derived from diabatic cooling of a unit of air. You require power to do this, and can gain more heat than you would simply by using that electricity to run a heater (you're effectively "fuelling" the system with warm air), but it's not a violation of conservation of energy and doesn't really require debunking. If anything requires debunking, it's the confusion between a heat pump's coefficient of efficiency and perpetual motion. These aren't the same thing. Scarlet A.pngtheistModerator 22:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't remember the exact efficiency but I have one of these things installed and it works fine. --83.84.137.22 (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Really? That's interesting. How much of an energy saving do you think you're getting?--Weirdstuff (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)