One device that transfers energy would be a heat pump. They're pretty well understood.
No, a gasoline engine doesn't create energy. There is nothing that creates energy. That's sort of the point
Perpetual Motion Device. On the ORBO forums.
- Thread starter ZamuBa
- Start date
-
- Tags
- free energy
One device that transfers energy would be a heat pump. They're pretty well understood.
No, a gasoline engine doesn't create energy. There is nothing that creates energy. That's sort of the point
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230
Ok, no answers yet to my question, so fair enough. I'll try to answer yours.
"Harnessing 'energy'" that exists. This is ok, and doable so far, if you mean for instance burning oil and using its energy, which was derived from the sun.
Now, "harnessing energy" at a net gain [of energy]. This means that you burn oil and get some power out, this power is used to drive something to get more power than you put in. "Oil burning" is just a for instance. We could be talking "batteries" or anything.
Here is where the problem arises. Let's put 100 watts into a device, a black box. Even friction free, I'll grant that. We must get 101 watts out. If we do, then we can drive the black box, and have 1 watt left over to use for our "excess" energy to drive a lightbulb.
OK. What would it take for me to say, "Well, I guess I was wrong"? It would take a demonstration which carefully measured the energy input at 100.0 watts, this is trivially easy to do. AND, a carefully measured energy output of 101.00 watts, again, easy to do with another watt measuring device.
The "watt measuring device" can be any of a number of types, but in principle the measurement of "heat input" vs. "heat output" will do for our purposes.
In short, simply measuring higher heat output than input will convince me.
And yes, this would be a form of perpetual motion, since you can run the black box from itself with power to spare.
Your turn.
Last edited:
You have to be careful here. What is important is energy, not power. It's incredibly easy to get more power out than you put in. Just put 1W in for two minutes and then get 2W out for one minute, for example. What you can't do is get more energy out than goes in, no matter how much you mess around with things.
Edit: The other important thing (in general, not in the quoted post) is not to mix up perpetual motion with free energy. They are not the same thing at all. All perpetual motion requires is for losses to be eliminated. This may be a little tricky, but doesn't break any physical laws. Free energy, on the other hand, requires creating energy out of nowhere and is completely impossible without some major changes to physics. The important thing is that perpetual motion is possible on paper. Many models use ideal conditions such as frictionless, absolute vacuum and so on. Under ideal conditions, perpetual motion is not only possible, it is the norm. Things like wheels with falling arms would go forever if there were no friction. While we can't quite get there yet in reality, we can actually get closer than you may think. Magnetic bearings have already been mentioned. Also of note are superconductors. Bring a magnet towards a superconductor and start it spinning and it will spin forever in a vacuum. In fact, this is one method of determining tha tsuperconductors truly have zero resistance as opposed to just very low resistance.
Free energy, however, can't even work on paper. No matter how much you simplify things to remove friction and other losses, the best you can ever do is prevent loss of energy, you can't magically make more appear. I think the big difference between perpetual motion proponents and free energy proponents is that the former often, usually even, acknowledge that what they are working on is nothing more than a toy with no more practical use than Newton's cradle, while free energy proponents either don't understand what they are doing and think they have discovered something, or are just plain frauds.
Last edited:
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230
Thanks, of course that's right. I was trying to use consistently simple language, and I have a thing about the overuse of the word "energy". Got in the way this time.
Seems like "energy and power" are used interchangeably by a lot of people, but one must take "time" into account. I was attempting to get the basic point across and assumed simultaneous in/out measurements. Total "heat out" vs. total "heat in" is best. Well, ok watt-hours, or joules!Well, I am assuming that perpetual motion needs a small amount of "free energy" to keep it going, since in the real world, there is no frictionless bearing.
True, but not practical.
Not sure I agree with that one. Wouldn't that just come to equilibrium even without friction? No net input of energy from gravity since it pulls on all arms equally. Not the same a ball rolling down an endless hill.
"Forever" is a long time.
No such thing as a perfect vacuum, etc. But, definitely a cool effect. They used those perfect spheres in a space experiment to detect the twisting of space by gravitational field. Exactly. Why is this so hard for people to understand? What intrigues me is why the question evokes such wrath among some who are proponents of free energy.
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 8,837
I am not properly explaining myself. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
We already do what I am talking about. We are harnessing the energy contained with the atom at a net gain when we are only considering the energy we use to extract the energy from the atom. Counting the energy within the atom is not relevant because we cannot access that energy without our harnessing of that energy. Of course no system can create energy. I am talking about accessing great sources of energy with a smaller amount of energy expended when compared to the energy gained.
I am comparing the energy used to create and function the device with the energy derived from the matter from which we are extracting energy.
Is this any more clear?
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
On the opening topic:
The supposed machine does not work as a PMM because turning the round magnets requires at least as much energy as was gained by the rotor magnet being attracted to it.
Basically, when you let one magnet be attracted by another, you transform energy from potential energy to kinetic energy, in the same way as when you let a weight move down in a gravity field.
Actually, you can see the attraction between two magnets as form of local gravity well. Now, we must realize that when something moves down a gravity well, and thus converts potential energy into kinetic energy, what matters is the relative change of position between the gravity well and the object. Thus, the energy exchange is the same whether you move the object or the gravity well (actually, this also explains why antigravity is impossible).
Back to the proposed magnetic machine: The proposed action is that when the mobile magnet has come close to the stationary one, the stationary magnet is to be reversed so that the rotor magent is repelled away again. This will work, but moving the "gravity well" will require exactly the same amount of energy as gained by moving the rotor magnet (plus losses).
A machine like this has been invented long ago, but for simplicity, the reversing magnets are replaced by electromagnets. The machine is called an electrical motor, and it works fine. It does not produce energy, however.
Hans
The supposed machine does not work as a PMM because turning the round magnets requires at least as much energy as was gained by the rotor magnet being attracted to it.
Basically, when you let one magnet be attracted by another, you transform energy from potential energy to kinetic energy, in the same way as when you let a weight move down in a gravity field.
Actually, you can see the attraction between two magnets as form of local gravity well. Now, we must realize that when something moves down a gravity well, and thus converts potential energy into kinetic energy, what matters is the relative change of position between the gravity well and the object. Thus, the energy exchange is the same whether you move the object or the gravity well (actually, this also explains why antigravity is impossible).
Back to the proposed magnetic machine: The proposed action is that when the mobile magnet has come close to the stationary one, the stationary magnet is to be reversed so that the rotor magent is repelled away again. This will work, but moving the "gravity well" will require exactly the same amount of energy as gained by moving the rotor magnet (plus losses).
A machine like this has been invented long ago, but for simplicity, the reversing magnets are replaced by electromagnets. The machine is called an electrical motor, and it works fine. It does not produce energy, however.
Hans
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
True, of course. I was just making the point that it's entirely possible for a perpetual motion proponent to claim that their device would work in the idea case, but it is never possible for a free energy proponent to do the same. In reality, neither is actually possible, but one is a whole lot further from reality than the other. It's like the difference between saying I can run a marathon in a few hours and saying I can run it in a few seconds. The former is certainly possible, even though I can't actually do it. The latter is simply impossible.
In the absence of friction (or any other losses), it would have to keep going forever because there would be no way for the energy or momentum to leave the system. There's no input of energy, but there's no output either, so once it's started moving, it won't stop by itself. Of course, if you don't start it, it will just sit there doing nothing.
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230
Well, yes, any wheel (or planet or star) would behave as you describe, not just one of those wheels with arms flopping around, right? But yes, agreed, in the total absence of any losses, its momentum will not be lost.
But the deal is that even a neutron star is slowing down, measurably, because of various losses due to its interaction with the rest of the universe.
I think Jerome really wants to understand this stuff, and we are maybe a little too technical. Seems like he has indeed been misunderstood. Not sure how to straighten out his understanding of all this, but I'll try, later.