| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Nomen Nescio" |
| Date: |
23 Sep 2005 04:30:07 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Parity Eotvos experiments--a few facts |
1. Lift a 2kg mass to the top.
2. Drop the 2kg mass and harness kinetic energy as it falls.
3. At the bottom, convert 2kg into 1kg mass.
4. Lift mass to the top.
5. At the top, convert 1kg mass into 2kg mass.
6. Repeat step (2).
Shouldnt all of this be to find two 1kg chiral masses (b,d) or (u,n) or (m_l,m_r) or whatever symbols you like?
b = 1 kg gold plated L quartz
d = 1 kg gold plated R quartz
1. Drop b = gb
2. Convert b to d = E(b,d)
3. Lift d to top = -gd
4. Convert d back to b = E(d,b)
But why should E(b,d) = E(d,b) = heat of fusion + heat of crystallization = 0?
Or whatever other b-d conversion you want to use. E.g., convert b to energy as bxc-squared and back to d as -dxc-squared and assume the absolute values are equal so E(b,d) = 0 = E(d,b).
IF E(b,d) = E(d,b) = 0 AND gb does not equal gd, then theres your perpetual motion ... I think. But however you convert b to d is assumed to be ideal, which it cant be, so it still violates the 2nd law, right?
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Parity Eotvos experiments--a few facts |
23 Sep 2005 05:16:08 PM |
|
|
Nomen Nescio wrote:
1. Lift a 2kg mass to the top.
2. Drop the 2kg mass and harness kinetic energy as it falls.
3. At the bottom, convert 2kg into 1kg mass.
4. Lift mass to the top.
5. At the top, convert 1kg mass into 2kg mass.
6. Repeat step (2).
Shouldnt all of this be to find two 1kg chiral masses (b,d) or (u,n) or (m_l,m_r) or whatever symbols you like?
b = 1 kg gold plated L quartz
d = 1 kg gold plated R quartz
You can't assume they're both 1kg in terms of *both*
gravitational mass and inertial mass -- if that were true,
the experiment would be null by assumption -- which would
be a logical fallacy if your goal is to *prove* it must
be null. So, let's assume there's a difference in one
of these types of mass, and that "b" and "d" are the
relevant different values, and that gb and gd are the
correct (and different) energies as you've written below.
(Note, since you didn't write g*1 for both steps, your
notation below already agrees with me and not what you
said above.)
1. Drop b = gb
2. Convert b to d = E(b,d)
3. Lift d to top = -gd
4. Convert d back to b = E(d,b)
Your notation in steps 2 and 4 conceals an assumption you're
making. Really for step 2 you should write something like
E(b,d;bottom) to allow for the possibility (in some new theory)
that the energy of conversion depends on height. Similarly
E(d,b;top) for step 4.
But why should E(b,d) = E(d,b) = heat of fusion + heat of crystallization = 0?
Or whatever other b-d conversion you want to use. E.g., convert b to energy as bxc-squared and back to d as -dxc-squared and assume the absolute values are equal so E(b,d) = 0 = E(d,b).
Clearly you need
E(b,d;bottom) = -E(d,b;bottom)
E(b,d;top) = -E(d,b;top)
to avoid perpetual motion of the first kind. But this in
itself does not imply any relationship between E(b,d;bottom)
and E(d,b;top).
IF E(b,d) = E(d,b) = 0 AND gb does not equal gd, then theres your perpetual motion ... I think. But however you convert b to d is assumed to be ideal, which it cant be, so it still violates the 2nd law, right?
The objection that had been raised was that a non-null
result would violate the *First* Law, and the point of my
post and of others was to address this point only. Yes, of
course, if your goal were to build a real perpetual motion
machine on the above principle, then you'd have to worry
about the efficiency of the conversions at top and bottom,
but that wasn't the point under discussion. IOW a 2nd-Law
argument is not a valid refutation of the objection.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
