Comments:GREETINGS AND WELCOME TO THE FIRST POST!!!

[kookbreaker]

Comment: The original post is now in 'another forum' however, I cannot seem to access that forum.

I'll blame Frances.

 

[Upchurch]

Comment: The original post is now in 'another forum' however, I cannot seem to access that forum.

I'll blame Frances.

Opps. That'd be my fault. It should be fixed now.

 

[Hand Bent Spoon]

I Bow To Our New Lord and Master, Kirk Gustum!

He's got everyone on his side!
In fact I might need to check that I'm not actually working for him.

In the end, we're all working for Kirk Gustum.

Have you seen his IQ? It would blow your mind!

 

[davefoc]

I wanted to express agreement with MRC_Hans about the apparent conflict between Kramer's statement that JREF wasn't concerned with how the device worked and that JREF insisted on examining the device as part of the test procedure.

I suspect Kramer thought it was obvious that the purpose of such an inspection was to eliminate the possibility of a power storage mechanism within the device. But I wasn't sure this applicant would have found that obvious and I thought it would have been better if Kramer had been more specific to the applicant about that issue.

I wonder how the applicant would have responded if he had been asked how he would propose to guarantee that his device didn't contain an energy storage mechanism if an internal inspection wasn't allowed.

 

[Zep]

I can see no conflict myself. The JREF conditions are disinterest in the explanation, but clear and abiding interest in the mechanism.

For example, if the explanation of the perpetual motion machine is given as "fairies from the bottom of my garden told me how to build it like that" then that is clearly not germane to the issue at hand. However, if the mechanism of the perpetual motion machine is not clearly observable then JREF needs to be sure it isn't hidden hamsters or whatever.

The question is not one of "how", but "if".

 

[davefoc]

Zep, I do not think that you and I are in disagreement. Perhaps my comments were not worded quite correctly.

I think the applicant, who may believe that he has a great invention buried within the enclosure may not find it obvious as to why JREF would need to see under the cover and I thought Kramer's correspondence should have been more explicit on this point.

I also thought that it might have been more tactful to explain the problem to the applicant and see how he might go about guaranteeing that there was not an energy storage mechanism within the box or that if there was that more energy had been produced by the machine than was originally stored inside the box.

A small comment on the suggestions relating to E=MC^2:

I think when energy is produced in a chemical reaction there is in fact an infinitesimal reduction in the mass of the reactants. However, this reduction in practice is so small as to be unmeasurable by any existing measurement techniques.

A sample calculation:

Suppose that the device produced 100 watts for a day. The would result in the production of 3600 * 24 * 100 joules or about 8.6 x 10^6 joules.

based on the e=mc^2 equation 1 gram= 10^13 joules.

So at the end of one day the device has lost 8.6 x 10^6 / 10^13 grams or 8.6 x 10^-7 grams. I am not sure what the limit of mass measurement is in terms of smallest absolute quantities but 8.6 x 10^-7 may be detectable. Even if it were the experiment would still require extraordinary controls because there are other effects that could be causing mass gains and losses in that range. For instance dust, outgassing, and oxidation probably are effecting the mass by a greater amount than that.

Of course the mass of the perpetual motion device enters into the practicality of this idea also. if the device weighed a kg a mass loss of that small amount might be undectable whereas if the device weighed only a gram the mass loss of about a microgram might be detectasble.

 

[Carn]

So at the end of one day the device has lost 8.6 x 10^6 / 10^13 grams or 8.6 x 10^-7 grams. I am not sure what the limit of mass measurement is in terms of smallest absolute quantities but 8.6 x 10^-7 may be detectable.

Then the machine going for 120 days would lose 10^-4 grams.
And i'm certain this is measuarable, because there is a debate about how(!) to find a better definition of kg, something like x atoms of type y is aimed at. I do not know what amount of uncertainity they aim at, but when meter was defined via light speed and time, the precision of light speed measurement was already for several years down to 1 meter/sek and time measurement had error below 10^-9 sek, so with both the precision was better than 10^-9. I expect that mass measurements are as now a definition of kg is sought to be at least as precise, so 10^-9 kg=10^-6 g is likely possible, thats 100 times more than the mass change you guessed.
Only, as i said, it might be possible that maybe half a dozen top scientist groups are able to do that and they have better things to do.

Even if it were the experiment would still require extraordinary controls because there are other effects that could be causing mass gains and losses in that range. For instance dust, outgassing, and oxidation probably are effecting the mass by a greater amount than that.

Therefore i included vacuum experts, who would have to think how to minimize ingoing and outgoing of material.
And keeping the gain or loss of mass due to gas movements,etc. below 10^-6 grams for 120 days, might be also at the limit of current abilities.

Looks like the cost to perform such a experiment is well above 1 million dollars.

Sorry, if i talked about this to much, just had an an idea, how it might be possible to check such a machine without examining it.

And testing it by simply letting it perform against the best chemical device of same size, would not rule out some raioactive material as energy source.(Easy to contruct a machine that runs for thousands of years, just drop radioactive material into water circuit, water will be heated and circulate and then mechanical energy can be drawn from it. Only difficult to get rigth material.)

Carn

 

[Ladewig]

A small comment on the suggestions relating to E=MC^2:

I think when energy is produced in a chemical reaction there is in fact an infinitesimal reduction in the mass of the reactants.

I direct you to Aerich's post above.

 

[davefoc]

Ladewig,
I read Aerich's post. I thought he was right for practical purposes but wrong on theoretical grounds.

The mass reduction as the result of a chemical reaction that produces heat or electrical energy is infinitesimal and I suspect undetectable, there is nonetheless a theoretical reduction as per Einstein's equation.

 

[Aerich]

Ladewig,
I read Aerich's post. I thought he was right for practical purposes but wrong on theoretical grounds.

The mass reduction as the result of a chemical reaction that produces heat or electrical energy is infinitesimal and I suspect undetectable, there is nonetheless a theoretical reduction as per Einstein's equation.

OK. Would you mind elucidating precisely where in theory it says that an exothermic chemical reaction's net positive heat energy comes from mass conversion, rather than the rearrangement of chemical bonds from high energy to low energy states? Because that seems to be a part of chemistry theory that I missed.

Seriously. There really is no mass conversion behind the heat produced by burning. It is not a nuclear reaction. You can calculate how infinitesimal the mass delta would be if it were one, but it isn't, and there is no change in mass. At least according to the theory I was taught.

If what you say were true, burning a piece of wood would release rather a lot more than boring old thermal (electromagnetic) radiation. By which I mean fun things like alpha and beta rays. Such would be very measurable no matter how hard the mass delta was to measure.

(Incidentally, I think you are wrong about that too. It might be difficult to measure such a small change in mass, but probably not impossible. Experimental physics and chemistry is rife with techniques for detecting extremely small effects.)

 

[Aerich]

Egg on face time: please disregard my previous post, because I was wrong. Apologies to davefoc. I was correctly remembering that chemists act as if mass is conserved during chemical reactions, but after following up on what Carn said I've discovered that this is an approximation to reality, not reality.

A good link: http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/faqs/faq1.html

The plus side is that though I may be embarrassed, I learned something new, and also learned where my past education may have been deficient.

 

[KRAMER]

This just in from Mr. Gustum, the likes of which we have heard so often it will never surprise us...(by the way, in all fairness, Mr. Gustum offered an apology for his diatribe of last week in which he threatened legal action against JREF - I will try to locate it and post it after this, his "escape hatch", as Randi so eloquently puts it)
=========================================
Hi Kramer,

I just wanted to know I will get back to you guys in a few weeks.. The company that is paying for my patenting does not want me showing any internal designs until they have all the paper work sent in and secured.. Then no problems with that.. So, after they do all that I will send a email letting you know I'm ready for testing.. I will say plan for about the the first week of Oct.

So, just put me on the side for now, and I will get back with you..

Thanks,

Kirk G
=========================================
Whatever, Kirk.

 

[KRAMER]

Here's Kirk's apology:
==========================================
Hi, I would like to appoligize.. I never had any lawer, The fact was I was having a rough time, turns out I was am passing a size 4-6 kidney stone, having some majoe blockage, and pain, and thought I was going to die.. So, after getting your email I went off at the mouth, And that is all it was... I'm very sorry for my actions.. I was out of line, and really talking stupid.. I do ask for JREFs forgivness.. I was a total butt.. I understand your anger at me as you are just doing your job, and JREF is just trying to do a honest testing.. And I know you are really a group of people trying to good, and was a jerk... Plain and simple..

As for testing.. Of my device.. I really want to do this I do, and I want you to be satisfied.. So, question is.. If you must inspect the workings, can we keep the workings secret? As, if I were to have the internal working made public knowledge it would defeat the purpose of the prize money because It would no longer be able to have a international pattent.. So, can we have the testors sign a NDA and keep the internal workings under wraps, at least for 2 years??

Also, you said you now do not wnat the gravity powered perpetual motor, or is that still ok? The reason I ask is I have a motor that works on another form of power that is not gravity.. So, would you prefer that instead? Or can we continue with the gravity one.. Just let me know what you require, and I will have to produce what your looking for, other wise I will never have a chance at the prize right..

Let me know your thought on testing, the NDA, and the type of motor you would best like to test.. And I will take it from there..

Again.. For what is is worth, i'm sorry for my last email, and I would really never go after JREF, and would not make a website, as that would be as mean as my dumb email..

Thanks for your time..

Kirk
=========================================
I wrote back to Kirk accepting his apology and advising him that we would happily sign his NDA. Then I got his email backing down from the Challenge (see previous post). All in a day's work.

 

[Ashles]

As, if I were to have the internal working made public knowledge it would defeat the purpose of the prize money because It would no longer be able to have a international pattent.. So, can we have the testors sign a NDA and keep the internal workings under wraps, at least for 2 years??

Aaaaand the company that is paying for his patenting never bothered to mention that even this would be unnacceptable? Well, until after you threw him by agreeing to the NDA.

I wonder if this shadowy and benevolent company exists in the same mythical realm as Kirk's lawyer and the devices themselves.

The reason I ask is I have a motor that works on another form of power that is not gravity..

What is so unique about that? I've got one in my car.

 

[Kopji]

I wonder if this shadowy and benevolent company exists in the same mythical realm as Kirk's lawyer and the devices themselves.

He probably sent it to NASA. One of my dream jobs would be reading and answering their mail. I'd do it for free. That's what they get for researching anti-gravity machines.

!!!Secret!!!
The Oil Company Green Ninjas are actually financed by the Patent Office Political Interface Team known as "POP-I". They have a meeting at the last Friday of the month, known as the Popeye and Olive Oil fan club to insiders.

 

[kookbreaker]

He probably sent it to NASA. One of my dream jobs would be reading and answering their mail. I'd do it for free. That's what they get for researching anti-gravity machines.

Its overrated, when I worked at the local science museum one of my co-workers had the 'ask the scientist' as part of his job. He ended up being a magnet for a load of kooky, triple-way-out stuff that is frankly unrepeatable. He kept a nice file of their works in a shoebox.

 

[jj]

OK. Would you mind elucidating precisely where in theory it says that an exothermic chemical reaction's net positive heat energy comes from mass conversion, rather than the rearrangement of chemical bonds from high energy to low energy states? Because that seems to be a part of chemistry theory that I missed.

Um, sorry, but I can ask Pel to explain it to you if you'd like, since Teldra seems to have taken an extended vacation in a great weapon.

In more seriousness, there is a mass conversion (small one) when the chemical bonds change. The energy represented in the bonds DOES manifiest as a (teeny tiny) amount of mass, or so I've been told.

I'm not sure it's measurable.

 

[jj]

Egg on face time: please disregard my previous post, because I was wrong. Apologies to davefoc. I was correctly remembering that chemists act as if mass is conserved during chemical reactions, but after following up on what Carn said I've discovered that this is an approximation to reality, not reality.

A good link: http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/faqs/faq1.html

The plus side is that though I may be embarrassed, I learned something new, and also learned where my past education may have been deficient.

Oops, sorry. Didn't see this, got over here from another thread.

I'll ask Sethra to smooth things over.

 

[Donn]

Just my two cents, and I am prob being dumb in some way, but couldn't one leave his motor running for a few months?
By that time any secret gas or battery would be kaput, no?

 

[Carn]

Just my two cents, and I am prob being dumb in some way, but couldn't one leave his motor running for a few months?
By that time any secret gas or battery would be kaput, no?

Would leave theoretically radioactive material heating a water circuit as power source.
Though i do not expect any normal person to get hands on enough material and survive the constuction of the machine.

Carn