| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Nick Rouse" |
| Date: |
15 Mar 2005 03:35:09 PM |
| Object: |
Re: cheap clean electricity (again) |
Bok <bok@noreply.invalid> wrote in message news:<42355349$1@clear.net.nz>...
Peter Lowrie wrote:
That is a novel idea and obviously a lot of thinking time has gone into it.
Notwithstanding those who eschew the idea as being a perpetual motion
machine, those ppl have not really thought about the idea as much as you
have and so are conceptually wanting, have nonetheless provided arguments
that require answering within the scope of your invention.
Please be aware that Newtons First Law describes 'perpetual motion'.
Please be aware of the difference between the notions of 'perpetual
motion' and a 'perpetual motion machine'.
The "hypothetical" case (of Newton's 1st law) you alluding, were no net
force acts on an object is useless in the context of a machine since an
object moving at constant velocity does no work. As soon as you attempt
to do something useful and hence remove energy from the system, the laws
of thermodynamics apply.
Perhaps we should refer to such machines as over-unity machines. Machines
that continue moving in a state of constant internal energy niether losing
energy nor gaining it from the external world are the asymtotic limit of
efforts to lower losses. There is no fundamental limit to how close we can
get to that limit. Quantised vortices in super-fluid helium is an example
of a very close approach. We may call that idealised limit a perpetual motion
machine.
But all people down history and on this and other newsgroups that
have wanted to /save the world/make themselves richer then Bill Gates/
are not interested in such machines. They are after building machines
that give a substantial, unending supply of usable energy to an external
load while taking either no, or less energy in and without depleting some
finite internal source of energy. Such machines are over-unity machines
and are a straight forward contravention of conservation of energy.
Pointing out loss mechanisms such as friction and eddy current while
valid, misses the main point. Such machines would not produce usable
external energy even if we were to allow magnetic levitation, perfect vacuums
super-conductors and the rest. It would be to no avail.
The second law of thermodynamics is frequently invoked and it is true
that such machines would cause a decrease in entropy were they to work
but it is not so easy to show as non-conservation of energy and is not
the same thing. A heat engine that took in 100kW at 100°C gave out 50kW
of mechanical effort and dumped 50kW to 0°C would conserve energy
but contravene the second law. Most of these ideas fail from simple
non-conservation of energy.
Nick Rouse
Nick Rouse
.
|
|
| User: "Ed Earl Ross" |
|
| Title: Re: cheap clean electricity (again) |
15 Mar 2005 05:40:43 PM |
|
|
Nick Rouse wrote:
Bok <bok@noreply.invalid> wrote in message news:<42355349$1@clear.net.nz>...
Peter Lowrie wrote:
That is a novel idea and obviously a lot of thinking time has gone into it.
Notwithstanding those who eschew the idea as being a perpetual motion
machine, those ppl have not really thought about the idea as much as you
have and so are conceptually wanting, have nonetheless provided arguments
that require answering within the scope of your invention.
Please be aware that Newtons First Law describes 'perpetual motion'.
Please be aware of the difference between the notions of 'perpetual
motion' and a 'perpetual motion machine'.
The "hypothetical" case (of Newton's 1st law) you alluding, were no net
force acts on an object is useless in the context of a machine since an
object moving at constant velocity does no work. As soon as you attempt
to do something useful and hence remove energy from the system, the laws
of thermodynamics apply.
Perhaps we should refer to such machines as over-unity machines. Machines
that continue moving in a state of constant internal energy niether losing
energy nor gaining it from the external world are the asymtotic limit of
efforts to lower losses. There is no fundamental limit to how close we can
get to that limit. Quantised vortices in super-fluid helium is an example
of a very close approach. We may call that idealised limit a perpetual motion
machine.
But all people down history and on this and other newsgroups that
have wanted to /save the world/make themselves richer then Bill Gates/
are not interested in such machines. They are after building machines
that give a substantial, unending supply of usable energy to an external
load while taking either no, or less energy in and without depleting some
finite internal source of energy. Such machines are over-unity machines
and are a straight forward contravention of conservation of energy.
Pointing out loss mechanisms such as friction and eddy current while
valid, misses the main point. Such machines would not produce usable
external energy even if we were to allow magnetic levitation, perfect vacuums
super-conductors and the rest. It would be to no avail.
The second law of thermodynamics is frequently invoked and it is true
that such machines would cause a decrease in entropy were they to work
but it is not so easy to show as non-conservation of energy and is not
the same thing. A heat engine that took in 100kW at 100°C gave out 50kW
of mechanical effort and dumped 50kW to 0°C would conserve energy
but contravene the second law. Most of these ideas fail from simple
non-conservation of energy.
True, these naive physicists want over an over-unity machine, but
perpetual motion is first required, and both are impossible, except
at the atomic level.
In any case, dictionary.com defines a "perpetual motion machine" as
the following:
"n : a machine that can continue to do work indefinitely without
drawing energy from some external source; impossible under the law
of conservation of energy"
Thus a perpetual motion machine is defined as doing more work
(providing energy) than input, i.e., an over-unity machine.
--
Humbly--Ed
Mark Twain
"There is something fascinating about science.
One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture
out of such a trifling investment of fact."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bok" |
|
| Title: Re: cheap clean electricity (again) |
16 Mar 2005 05:15:10 AM |
|
|
Nick Rouse wrote:
Perhaps we should refer to such machines as over-unity machines.
Yep, that's a better way to convey their fundamental flaw; several
'inventors' of such devices even go as far as including over-unity
energy conversion in their claim.
Machines that continue moving in a state of constant internal energy niether losing
energy nor gaining it from the external world are the asymtotic limit of
efforts to lower losses. There is no fundamental limit to how close we can
get to that limit. Quantised vortices in super-fluid helium is an example
of a very close approach. We may call that idealised limit a perpetual motion
machine.
While there are examples of phenomena that approach 'perpetual motion'
asymptotically, is it correct to call such 'systems' machines in the
normal sense of the word if they do no work?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ed Earl Ross" |
|
| Title: Re: cheap clean electricity (again) machines |
16 Mar 2005 07:28:04 AM |
|
|
Bok wrote:
<snip>
While there are examples of phenomena that approach 'perpetual motion'
asymptotically, is it correct to call such 'systems' machines in the
normal sense of the word if they do no work?
The simplest machines are the lever, wheel, and inclined plane,
which make work easier, but do no work themselves.
--
Humbly--Ed
Mark Twain
"There is something fascinating about science.
One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture
out of such a trifling investment of fact."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Sprunk" |
|
| Title: Re: cheap clean electricity (again) machines |
16 Mar 2005 10:52:30 AM |
|
|
"Ed Earl Ross" <edearl@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:EvWZd.5889$Ux.3699@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Bok wrote:
While there are examples of phenomena that approach 'perpetual motion'
asymptotically, is it correct to call such 'systems' machines in the
normal sense of the word if they do no work?
The simplest machines are the lever, wheel, and inclined plane,
which make work easier, but do no work themselves.
If you look at it that way, no machine does any work at all. They are
simply mechanical catalysts that turn one form of energy into others (one or
more outputs and various losses).
Over-unity looks better and better as accuracy goes, but I doubt it'll ever
supplant PMM in practice.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ed Earl Ross" |
|
| Title: Re: cheap clean electricity (again) machines |
16 Mar 2005 01:55:09 PM |
|
|
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
"Ed Earl Ross" <edearl@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:EvWZd.5889$Ux.3699@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Bok wrote:
While there are examples of phenomena that approach 'perpetual motion'
asymptotically, is it correct to call such 'systems' machines in the
normal sense of the word if they do no work?
The simplest machines are the lever, wheel, and inclined plane,
which make work easier, but do no work themselves.
If you look at it that way, no machine does any work at all. They are
simply mechanical catalysts that turn one form of energy into others (one or
more outputs and various losses).
Over-unity looks better and better as accuracy goes, but I doubt it'll ever
supplant PMM in practice.
I believe my high-school physics teacher said that all machines are
variations and combinations of the three simple machines. A screw
is an inclined plane twisted around an axle. Gears are wheel and
axle combinations. Rocker arms in an engine are levers. Etc.
No lever, wheel, or inclined plane (nor any combination thereof)
can produce power. They can change the form of power, as a lever
converts large-movement low-pressure power into small-movement
high-pressure power. They can also transfer power from one place to
another, as an axle can transfer power from one end to the other.
However, they do not produce power.
Over-unity machines (alias perpetual motion machines) are impossible.
--
Humbly--Ed
Mark Twain
"There is something fascinating about science.
One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture
out of such a trifling investment of fact."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: cheap clean electricity (again) machines |
16 Mar 2005 11:20:12 PM |
|
|
"Ed Earl Ross" <edearl@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:xa0_d.7278$8D.6686@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
"Ed Earl Ross" <edearl@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:EvWZd.5889$Ux.3699@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Bok wrote:
While there are examples of phenomena that approach 'perpetual motion'
asymptotically, is it correct to call such 'systems' machines in the
normal sense of the word if they do no work?
The simplest machines are the lever, wheel, and inclined plane,
which make work easier, but do no work themselves.
If you look at it that way, no machine does any work at all. They are
simply mechanical catalysts that turn one form of energy into others
(one or
more outputs and various losses).
Over-unity looks better and better as accuracy goes, but I doubt it'll
ever
supplant PMM in practice.
I believe my high-school physics teacher said that all machines are
variations and combinations of the three simple machines. A screw
is an inclined plane twisted around an axle. Gears are wheel and
axle combinations. Rocker arms in an engine are levers. Etc.
No lever, wheel, or inclined plane (nor any combination thereof)
can produce power. They can change the form of power, as a lever
converts large-movement low-pressure power into small-movement
high-pressure power. They can also transfer power from one place to
another, as an axle can transfer power from one end to the other.
However, they do not produce power.
Over-unity machines (alias perpetual motion machines) are impossible.
-----------
Your conclusion is right but your teacher should have qualified his
statement to strictly mechanical machines. Electric motors and generators
may also be considered as "machines" as is your computer (remember Turing's
machine). "Machine" is a fairly broad term These things convert energy from
one form to another but also are bound by conservation of energy.
--
Don Kelly
dhky@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ed Earl Ross" |
|
| Title: Re: cheap clean electricity (again) machines |
17 Mar 2005 09:06:31 AM |
|
|
Don Kelly wrote:
"Ed Earl Ross" <edearl@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:xa0_d.7278$8D.6686@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
"Ed Earl Ross" <edearl@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:EvWZd.5889$Ux.3699@tornado.texas.rr.com...
The simplest machines are the lever, wheel, and inclined plane,
which make work easier, but do no work themselves.
I believe my high-school physics teacher said that all machines are
variations and combinations of the three simple machines. A screw
is an inclined plane twisted around an axle. Gears are wheel and
axle combinations. Rocker arms in an engine are levers. Etc.
No lever, wheel, or inclined plane (nor any combination thereof)
can produce power. They can change the form of power, as a lever
converts large-movement low-pressure power into small-movement
high-pressure power. They can also transfer power from one place to
another, as an axle can transfer power from one end to the other.
However, they do not produce power.
Over-unity machines (alias perpetual motion machines) are impossible.
-----------
Your conclusion is right but your teacher should have qualified his
statement to strictly mechanical machines. Electric motors and generators
may also be considered as "machines" as is your computer (remember Turing's
machine). "Machine" is a fairly broad term These things convert energy from
one form to another but also are bound by conservation of energy.
I believe my physics teacher was referring to mechanical machines,
as the first definition in dictionary.com, given below.
<quote>
1. A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies
mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form.
2. A simple device, such as a lever, a pulley, or an inclined
plane, that alters the magnitude or direction, or both, of an
applied force; a simple machine.
</quote>
The plethora of definitions make the term ambiguous, none of which
are labeled specific to physics. For example, "machine" in the
phrase /political machine/ is an analogy, but IMO a political
machine is not really a machine.
An electric motor contains a wheel-and-axle simple machine, which
means an electric motor is (partly) a machine. Of course, a motor
also contains other components, including at least one
electromagnet, and may contain other components such as brushes or
permanent magnets.
The Quagmire
<IMO>
A permanent magnet is not a machine. The wire and iron in an
electromagnet are not a machines; neither is an electromagnet,
except when taking the form of a machine, such as a lever.
When a magnet moves a piece of iron to itself, the combination and
process do not comprise a machine.
When an electromagnet moves a piece of iron to itself, the
combination and process do not comprise a machine.
</IMO>
When an electromagnet moves the armature of an electric motor, it
moves the wheel-and-axle machine. The action of moving the armature
is similar to a magnet moving a piece of iron--is this process also
a machine? I do not know. The process converts electric power into
mechanical power and heat.
An electric motor may be a made of a machine and a converter, or it
may be made of two machines. I really don't care, electric motors
contain at least one machine and act like machines; thus, they are
machines.
--
Humbly--Ed
Mark Twain
"There is something fascinating about science.
One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture
out of such a trifling investment of fact."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: cheap clean electricity (again) machines |
18 Mar 2005 10:51:33 PM |
|
|
"Ed Earl Ross" <edearl@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:X1h_d.10048$8D.3643@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Don Kelly wrote:
"Ed Earl Ross" <edearl@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:xa0_d.7278$8D.6686@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
"Ed Earl Ross" <edearl@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:EvWZd.5889$Ux.3699@tornado.texas.rr.com...
The simplest machines are the lever, wheel, and inclined plane,
which make work easier, but do no work themselves.
I believe my high-school physics teacher said that all machines are
variations and combinations of the three simple machines. A screw
is an inclined plane twisted around an axle. Gears are wheel and
axle combinations. Rocker arms in an engine are levers. Etc.
No lever, wheel, or inclined plane (nor any combination thereof)
can produce power. They can change the form of power, as a lever
converts large-movement low-pressure power into small-movement
high-pressure power. They can also transfer power from one place to
another, as an axle can transfer power from one end to the other.
However, they do not produce power.
Over-unity machines (alias perpetual motion machines) are impossible.
-----------
Your conclusion is right but your teacher should have qualified his
statement to strictly mechanical machines. Electric motors and
generators
may also be considered as "machines" as is your computer (remember
Turing's
machine). "Machine" is a fairly broad term These things convert energy
from
one form to another but also are bound by conservation of energy.
I believe my physics teacher was referring to mechanical machines,
as the first definition in dictionary.com, given below.
<quote>
1. A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies
mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form.
2. A simple device, such as a lever, a pulley, or an inclined
plane, that alters the magnitude or direction, or both, of an
applied force; a simple machine.
</quote>
The plethora of definitions make the term ambiguous, none of which
are labeled specific to physics. For example, "machine" in the
phrase /political machine/ is an analogy, but IMO a political
machine is not really a machine.
An electric motor contains a wheel-and-axle simple machine, which
means an electric motor is (partly) a machine. Of course, a motor
also contains other components, including at least one
electromagnet, and may contain other components such as brushes or
permanent magnets.
The Quagmire
<IMO>
A permanent magnet is not a machine. The wire and iron in an
electromagnet are not a machines; neither is an electromagnet,
except when taking the form of a machine, such as a lever.
When a magnet moves a piece of iron to itself, the combination and
process do not comprise a machine.
When an electromagnet moves a piece of iron to itself, the
combination and process do not comprise a machine.
</IMO>
When an electromagnet moves the armature of an electric motor, it
moves the wheel-and-axle machine. The action of moving the armature
is similar to a magnet moving a piece of iron--is this process also
a machine? I do not know. The process converts electric power into
mechanical power and heat.
An electric motor may be a made of a machine and a converter, or it
may be made of two machines. I really don't care, electric motors
contain at least one machine and act like machines; thus, they are
machines.
--
Humbly--Ed
Mark Twain
"There is something fascinating about science.
One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture
out of such a trifling investment of fact."
-----------
My dictionary says "1) an apparatus using or applying mechanical power,
having several parts, each with a definite function, which together perform
certain kinds of work. 2)a particular kind of machine, e.g. a vehicle, piece
of electrical or electronic apparatus,etc. 3)...."
This is a bit broader than your strictly mechanical definition.
However, in general, such things as transformers are not called machines
while motors with a mechanical component are.- as you say- called machines.
A solenoid can also be called a machine although there may be no lever,
wheel or inclined plane involved. It will do mechanical work.
All I intended was that "machine" has become somewhat looser than it was 200
years ago.
--
Don Kelly
dhky@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ed Earl Ross" |
|
| Title: Re: cheap clean electricity (again) machines |
19 Mar 2005 02:49:22 AM |
|
|
Don Kelly wrote:
My dictionary says "1) an apparatus using or applying mechanical power,
having several parts, each with a definite function, which together perform
certain kinds of work. 2)a particular kind of machine, e.g. a vehicle, piece
of electrical or electronic apparatus,etc. 3)...."
This is a bit broader than your strictly mechanical definition.
However, in general, such things as transformers are not called machines
while motors with a mechanical component are.- as you say- called machines.
A solenoid can also be called a machine although there may be no lever,
wheel or inclined plane involved. It will do mechanical work.
All the dictionaries I've looked at contain many definitions for
machine.
All I intended was that "machine" has become somewhat looser than it was 200
years ago.
Agree.
Words with so many definitions must be interpreted in context. As
the topic was ppm (a mechanical device), interpretations such as a
computer being a machine are out of context.
Raheman's ppm is a hydraulic device. There are analogies in
hydraulics to (some) solid mechanical machines. For example, a
hydraulic jack is similar to a lever. Lubricating oil serves a
similar purpose as a wheel, it reduces friction and makes movement
of a load easier. I am unable to think of a hydraulic analogy to an
inclined plane.
In any case, neither a fluid nor a solid mechanical machine can
create energy or power, regardless of complexity. A ppm is impossible.
Thanks for your help. Your critical review forced me to enhance my
concept of machines and improve my critique of ppm, including
Raheman's ppm.
--
Humbly--Ed
Mark Twain
"There is something fascinating about science.
One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture
out of such a trifling investment of fact."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: cheap clean electricity (again) machines |
20 Mar 2005 08:24:18 PM |
|
|
"Ed Earl Ross" <edearl@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mIR_d.4706$ot.1989@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Don Kelly wrote:
My dictionary says "1) an apparatus using or applying mechanical power,
having several parts, each with a definite function, which together
perform
certain kinds of work. 2)a particular kind of machine, e.g. a vehicle,
piece
of electrical or electronic apparatus,etc. 3)...."
This is a bit broader than your strictly mechanical definition.
However, in general, such things as transformers are not called
machines
while motors with a mechanical component are.- as you say- called
machines.
A solenoid can also be called a machine although there may be no lever,
wheel or inclined plane involved. It will do mechanical work.
All the dictionaries I've looked at contain many definitions for
machine.
All I intended was that "machine" has become somewhat looser than it was
200
years ago.
Agree.
Words with so many definitions must be interpreted in context. As
the topic was ppm (a mechanical device), interpretations such as a
computer being a machine are out of context.
Raheman's ppm is a hydraulic device. There are analogies in
hydraulics to (some) solid mechanical machines. For example, a
hydraulic jack is similar to a lever. Lubricating oil serves a
similar purpose as a wheel, it reduces friction and makes movement
of a load easier. I am unable to think of a hydraulic analogy to an
inclined plane.
In any case, neither a fluid nor a solid mechanical machine can
create energy or power, regardless of complexity. A ppm is impossible.
Thanks for your help. Your critical review forced me to enhance my
concept of machines and improve my critique of ppm, including
Raheman's ppm.
--
Humbly--Ed
Mark Twain
"There is something fascinating about science.
One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture
out of such a trifling investment of fact."
--------------------------------
Fair enough - both of us gained.
--
Don Kelly
dhky@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Lancaster" |
|
| Title: Re: cheap clean electricity (again) machines |
19 Mar 2005 04:44:52 AM |
|
|
Ed Earl Ross wrote:
Thanks for your help. Your critical review forced me to enhance my
concept of machines and improve my critique of ppm, including Raheman's
ppm.
--
Humbly--Ed
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/bashpseu.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email:
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: cheap clean electricity (again) machines |
17 Mar 2005 10:55:12 AM |
|
|
I see falling dominoes as close to one can get to continual energy
created by the first domino to fall over. It is like a water fall.Like
ocean waves. Wind etc. A continual push force that in theory could be
infinite. Could we think for every drop of water that falls at the
Hoover dam an electron is pushed(made to move) ? Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
cheap clean electricity (again)
cheap clean electricity
Young's Interference, on the cheap
high quality, low cost carbon nanotubes available from Cheap Tubes Inc.
need a cheap and easy air pump design
Swallow ***** from my *****, she'd rather scold eventually than fear with Eddie's cheap kettle, Retarded Moronic Princess.
Re: Cheap water from the oceans
Cheap water from the oceans
| Can anyone help me find a lightweight and cheap mirror?
Energy too cheap to meter
MICROSATELLITES; how small? How cheap?
(WWW.CNCIRCLE.COM) cheap wholesale nike jordan, adidas,puma,lacoste,gucci,parada,lv,bape,tupac.outlet shoe, and hoodies,jean, jacket,sunglass,handbags, watch, mp4.iphone
Scientific books: cheap sell-out of the library
Cheap Peltier air conditioner?
Cheap electric car
|
|
|
