| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Lord Snooty" |
| Date: |
22 Oct 2003 05:07:41 PM |
| Object: |
Free Energy for Uncle Al |
It is well-known that a directional antenna imparts physical momentum in the
opposite direction to the average radiated momentum's direction. To easily see
this, consider two quarter wave wires spaced lambda/4 apart and driven at the
same frequency, but 90 degrees out of phase. Figure out the forces over one
cycle on each wire using Biot-Savart or whatever you like. Momentum is
conserved because the e/m radiation momentum is equal and opposite to the
mechanical momentum. For another way of seeing this, in the dual case of a
magnetic system, see Prof. John Cramer's mini-essay at
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw82.html
All well and good. But what if we strap a few of these devices around the
periphery of a wheel upon whose axis is located a dynamo? (I omit details of
providing the power hookup, since that's engineering, and we're discussing
physics here). The wheel will accelerate, and will eventually reach a speed
whereat the dynamo is generating sufficient power to drive the devices
autonomously. We now have a self-contained system which is capable of
generating free energy in direct proportion to the excess dynamo power over
its break-even point.
An analogy would be using mundane jet engines strapped to a wheel and doing
the same thing. The e/m radiation is analogised to the hot gases emiited
backwards by each jet. The dynamo is analogised with a tank of fuel whose fill
rate is proportional to the speed of the wheel. The break-even point is
analogised by the tank's fill rate being equal to its emptying rate. Except
you can't build a tank like that. But you can build a dynamo like that.
I'm sure Uncle will nail this one, stillborn, in two shakes of a lamb's tail.
The idea is so violently antithetical to the conservation laws we know and
love that it HAS to be wrong. Any takers?
No vague hand-waving about Emmi Noether, please. I imagine the answer has
something to do with the characteristics of the emitted radiation, which,
speaking very loosely, is produced as a slow (compared to c) vortex.
-Andrew
.
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy for Uncle Al |
22 Oct 2003 07:50:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Lord Snooty wrote:
All well and good. But what if we strap a few of these devices around the
periphery of a wheel upon whose axis is located a dynamo? (I omit details of
providing the power hookup, since that's engineering, and we're discussing
physics here). The wheel will accelerate, and will eventually reach a speed
whereat the dynamo is generating sufficient power to drive the devices
autonomously. We now have a self-contained system which is capable of
generating free energy in direct proportion to the excess dynamo power over
its break-even point.
[cut]
analogised by the tank's fill rate being equal to its emptying rate. Except
you can't build a tank like that. But you can build a dynamo like that.
I'm sure Uncle will nail this one, stillborn, in two shakes of a lamb's tail.
The idea is so violently antithetical to the conservation laws we know and
love that it HAS to be wrong. Any takers?
Sure. Try building a dynamo like that. A real dynamo (or even a
theoretically perfect dynamo) will exert a torque on the wheel acting to
slow it down. That's where the generated energy comes from. The more power
generated, the more power will be needed from somewhere to stop the wheel
from slowing down.
No vague hand-waving about Emmi Noether, please. I imagine the answer has
something to do with the characteristics of the emitted radiation, which,
speaking very loosely, is produced as a slow (compared to c) vortex.
No, it doesn't really matter how you spin the wheel. Just connect it to an
electric motor if you want. It simply that the dynamo converts the
rotational kinetic energy of the wheel to electrical energy - it's an
energy converter, not an energy maker. Without any losses in conversion,
you could in principle put all that energy back into the wheel and keep it
going.
Well, you might still get some fun effects if you try to spin the wheel
faster than the radiation frequency, but that's easy enough to avoid by
using higher frequencies (at which, however, the torque:power ratio
drops).
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Snooty" |
|
| Title: The answer to the question about over-unity |
23 Oct 2003 05:26:56 PM |
|
|
Timo and I have been emailing about this, and reached impasse.
This breaks the impasse.
The following simple rig demonstrates an apparent violation in energy
conservation.
It is equivalent to the principle of the "free energy" device in the above
post.
We attach a directional light to the periphery of a wheel with the beam
direction tangential.
We assume the wheel is mounted on a frictionless bearing and has radius R.
We maintain a constant power input P0 to the light.
We can power the light either locally or via sliprings - it doesn't matter.
We assume that the light emits with 100% power conversion efficiency.
The light emits power = P0
The back-reaction force F = P0/c
The torque on the wheel T = P0*R/c
The wheel will accelerate, and at any time has an angular velocity w rad/sec.
The power developed by the wheel at w is P1 = T*w = P0*R*w/c
So we appear to have a situation whereby P1 increases with w, and P0 remains
constant.
Clearly an w exists above which P1 > P0 !
But look more closely.
The critical value of w to break conservation is w0 = c/R.
This implies that the edge of the wheel needs to be travelling at the speed of
light to break even.
And we haven't included the reduction in F due to Doppler either, which makes
things even less likely to break conservation.
Case closed. I answered my own question.
-Andrew
"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0310231038480.30771-100000@kolmogorov.physics.uq.edu.au...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Lord Snooty wrote:
All well and good. But what if we strap a few of these devices around the
periphery of a wheel upon whose axis is located a dynamo? (I omit details
of
providing the power hookup, since that's engineering, and we're discussing
physics here). The wheel will accelerate, and will eventually reach a
speed
whereat the dynamo is generating sufficient power to drive the devices
autonomously. We now have a self-contained system which is capable of
generating free energy in direct proportion to the excess dynamo power
over
its break-even point.
[cut]
analogised by the tank's fill rate being equal to its emptying rate.
Except
you can't build a tank like that. But you can build a dynamo like that.
I'm sure Uncle will nail this one, stillborn, in two shakes of a lamb's
tail.
The idea is so violently antithetical to the conservation laws we know and
love that it HAS to be wrong. Any takers?
Sure. Try building a dynamo like that. A real dynamo (or even a
theoretically perfect dynamo) will exert a torque on the wheel acting to
slow it down. That's where the generated energy comes from. The more power
generated, the more power will be needed from somewhere to stop the wheel
from slowing down.
No vague hand-waving about Emmi Noether, please. I imagine the answer has
something to do with the characteristics of the emitted radiation, which,
speaking very loosely, is produced as a slow (compared to c) vortex.
No, it doesn't really matter how you spin the wheel. Just connect it to an
electric motor if you want. It simply that the dynamo converts the
rotational kinetic energy of the wheel to electrical energy - it's an
energy converter, not an energy maker. Without any losses in conversion,
you could in principle put all that energy back into the wheel and keep it
going.
Well, you might still get some fun effects if you try to spin the wheel
faster than the radiation frequency, but that's easy enough to avoid by
using higher frequencies (at which, however, the torque:power ratio
drops).
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
