| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Forgetful Goldfish" |
| Date: |
21 Aug 2006 05:51:36 AM |
| Object: |
Perpetual motion |
I realise just by the subject matter of the posting I am going to get
slated but there reason I am posting this message is that I can't think
of a good reason why this shouldn't work. As we all know a gas is made
up of atoms and these atoms are continuously moving, hence pressure,
temperature etc. etc,
What I am asking is first, is it possible to construct a barrier that
lets atoms through in only one direction? Some sort of nanoscale valve?
I don't think it is possible at the macro scale every scheme I think of
will not work.
If it is possible to construct such a barrier could this barrier be
used to extract work from the systems without any heat sink.
I envisage some sort of barrier which increases the pressure on one
side and decrease it on the other and a turbine working between the
two. Energy would be conserved as the random motion of the particles in
the system as a whole would be decreased.
I can't think of any reason to forbid such as system other than the
fact that it would violate, I believe though correct me if I am wrong,
the second law. It is my contention that the second law comes from
macroscopic systems and thus is not applicable to this system as the
barrier would control the passage of individual atoms.
This problem is annoying me and I look forward to a resolution even if
it is found that what I am saying is absurd.
.
|
|
| User: "Russel Sprout" |
|
| Title: Re: Perpetual motion |
21 Aug 2006 06:13:32 AM |
|
|
"Forgetful Goldfish" <kieranwyse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156157496.909730.270460@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
I realise just by the subject matter of the posting I am going to get
slated but there reason I am posting this message is that I can't think
of a good reason why this shouldn't work. As we all know a gas is made
up of atoms and these atoms are continuously moving, hence pressure,
temperature etc. etc,
What I am asking is first, is it possible to construct a barrier that
lets atoms through in only one direction? Some sort of nanoscale valve?
I don't think it is possible at the macro scale every scheme I think of
will not work.
If it is possible to construct such a barrier could this barrier be
used to extract work from the systems without any heat sink.
I envisage some sort of barrier which increases the pressure on one
side and decrease it on the other and a turbine working between the
two. Energy would be conserved as the random motion of the particles in
the system as a whole would be decreased.
I can't think of any reason to forbid such as system other than the
fact that it would violate, I believe though correct me if I am wrong,
the second law. It is my contention that the second law comes from
macroscopic systems and thus is not applicable to this system as the
barrier would control the passage of individual atoms.
This problem is annoying me and I look forward to a resolution even if
it is found that what I am saying is absurd.
You'll need some Maxwell's daemons, they'll do the trick. Oh, and something
to feed them on.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=maxwell%27s+daemon&btnG=Search&meta=
.
|
|
|
| User: "Forgetful Goldfish" |
|
| Title: Re: Perpetual motion |
21 Aug 2006 06:34:34 AM |
|
|
Russel Sprout wrote:
"Forgetful Goldfish" <kieranwyse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156157496.909730.270460@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
I realise just by the subject matter of the posting I am going to get
slated but there reason I am posting this message is that I can't think
of a good reason why this shouldn't work. As we all know a gas is made
up of atoms and these atoms are continuously moving, hence pressure,
temperature etc. etc,
What I am asking is first, is it possible to construct a barrier that
lets atoms through in only one direction? Some sort of nanoscale valve?
I don't think it is possible at the macro scale every scheme I think of
will not work.
If it is possible to construct such a barrier could this barrier be
used to extract work from the systems without any heat sink.
I envisage some sort of barrier which increases the pressure on one
side and decrease it on the other and a turbine working between the
two. Energy would be conserved as the random motion of the particles in
the system as a whole would be decreased.
I can't think of any reason to forbid such as system other than the
fact that it would violate, I believe though correct me if I am wrong,
the second law. It is my contention that the second law comes from
macroscopic systems and thus is not applicable to this system as the
barrier would control the passage of individual atoms.
This problem is annoying me and I look forward to a resolution even if
it is found that what I am saying is absurd.
You'll need some Maxwell's daemons, they'll do the trick. Oh, and something
to feed them on.
It is good to know that I am not completely mad or atleast there are
some people who are as mad as me.
Thanks Russel
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=maxwell%27s+daemon&btnG=Search&meta=
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Perpetual motion |
21 Aug 2006 08:17:37 AM |
|
|
"Forgetful Goldfish" <kieranwyse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156157496.909730.270460@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
|I realise just by the subject matter of the posting I am going to get
| slated but there reason I am posting this message is that I can't think
| of a good reason why this shouldn't work. As we all know a gas is made
| up of atoms and these atoms are continuously moving, hence pressure,
| temperature etc. etc,
| What I am asking is first, is it possible to construct a barrier that
| lets atoms through in only one direction?
That is of course Maxwell's demon, and the answer is Yes.
Some sort of nanoscale valve?
| I don't think it is possible at the macro scale every scheme I think of
| will not work.
| If it is possible to construct such a barrier could this barrier be
| used to extract work from the systems without any heat sink.
| I envisage some sort of barrier which increases the pressure on one
| side and decrease it on the other and a turbine working between the
| two. Energy would be conserved as the random motion of the particles in
| the system as a whole would be decreased.
|
| I can't think of any reason to forbid such as system other than the
| fact that it would violate, I believe though correct me if I am wrong,
| the second law. It is my contention that the second law comes from
| macroscopic systems and thus is not applicable to this system as the
| barrier would control the passage of individual atoms.
|
| This problem is annoying me and I look forward to a resolution even if
| it is found that what I am saying is absurd.
The barrier has to open and close, and that requires energy.
On a macroscopic level you've just invented the internal combustion
engine which has valves to let air in, burned gases out.
Well done but you are a tad late.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Perpetual motion |
21 Aug 2006 09:39:34 AM |
|
|
Forgetful Goldfish wrote:
I realise just by the subject matter of the posting I am going to get
slated but there reason I am posting this message is that I can't think
of a good reason why this shouldn't work. As we all know a gas is made
up of atoms and these atoms are continuously moving, hence pressure,
temperature etc. etc,
What I am asking is first, is it possible to construct a barrier that
lets atoms through in only one direction? Some sort of nanoscale valve?
I don't think it is possible at the macro scale every scheme I think of
will not work.
If it is possible to construct such a barrier could this barrier be
used to extract work from the systems without any heat sink.
I envisage some sort of barrier which increases the pressure on one
side and decrease it on the other and a turbine working between the
two. Energy would be conserved as the random motion of the particles in
the system as a whole would be decreased.
I can't think of any reason to forbid such as system other than the
fact that it would violate, I believe though correct me if I am wrong,
the second law. It is my contention that the second law comes from
macroscopic systems and thus is not applicable to this system as the
barrier would control the passage of individual atoms.
This problem is annoying me and I look forward to a resolution even if
it is found that what I am saying is absurd.
Here's some background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_Demon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Forgetful Goldfish" |
|
| Title: Re: Perpetual motion |
22 Aug 2006 03:39:34 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Forgetful Goldfish wrote:
I realise just by the subject matter of the posting I am going to get
slated but there reason I am posting this message is that I can't think
of a good reason why this shouldn't work. As we all know a gas is made
up of atoms and these atoms are continuously moving, hence pressure,
temperature etc. etc,
What I am asking is first, is it possible to construct a barrier that
lets atoms through in only one direction? Some sort of nanoscale valve?
I don't think it is possible at the macro scale every scheme I think of
will not work.
If it is possible to construct such a barrier could this barrier be
used to extract work from the systems without any heat sink.
I envisage some sort of barrier which increases the pressure on one
side and decrease it on the other and a turbine working between the
two. Energy would be conserved as the random motion of the particles in
the system as a whole would be decreased.
I can't think of any reason to forbid such as system other than the
fact that it would violate, I believe though correct me if I am wrong,
the second law. It is my contention that the second law comes from
macroscopic systems and thus is not applicable to this system as the
barrier would control the passage of individual atoms.
This problem is annoying me and I look forward to a resolution even if
it is found that what I am saying is absurd.
Here's some background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_Demon
All really interesting stuff it'll certainly give me something to
ponder over. Thanks.
Anyway has anyone read this stuff on "free energy".
http://www.steorn.net
Seems unlikely to me a, bit like cold fusion and I have noted that
even though they are saying they will let independent scientist test
the results they haven't open up their research so labs across the
world to test this, I guess they would claim this is to protect their
invention but it is not usually the way science is done.
I don't get a feeling they are not trying to con anyone but the most
successful con-men never do do they? If they are genuine I would urge
them to let completely independent labs test this, if their research is
corroborated I doubt they will ever be wanting of money.
What does everyone else think?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kunzmilan" |
|
| Title: Re: Perpetual motion |
24 Aug 2006 06:58:09 AM |
|
|
Forgetful Goldfish wrote:
I can't think of any reason to forbid such as system other than the
fact that it would violate, I believe though correct me if I am wrong,
the second law. It is my contention that the second law comes from
macroscopic systems and thus is not applicable to this system as the
barrier would control the passage of individual atoms.
There are also other laws, as the law of consevation of momentum. This
law is violated.
kunzmilan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
