h a l f b a k e r yWhere life irritates science.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
A while ago, [st3f] made the comment that
in the setup of a perpetual motion
machine, there is always some "sleight of
hand" to divert attention away from the
part that violates the laws of
thermodynamics. This aspect, plus their
perpetual appeal, sets the mobile
perpetuum apart from other
cases of "bad
science". I propose that perpetual motion
machines, once identified as such, can
actually be useful object lessions in the
laws of thermodynamics and how these
manifest themselves. Currently there is a
ban on perpetual motion machines. I
propose that instead, these be moved to a
new category / penalty box where they
can be dissected and their true nature
revealed.
HP's perpetuum mobile
http://www.hp-gramatke.net/perpetuum/
with animated drawings. [jutta, Jan 30 2006]
The Museum of Unworkable Devices
http://www.lhup.edu...k/museum/unwork.htm
[xaviergisz, Jan 30 2006]
Maxwell's demon
http://en.wikipedia...iki/Maxwell's_demon
[spidermother, Jan 30 2006]
(??) A possible energy supply
A_20possible_20energy_20supply
This is what I'm talking about. [Slaith] may be educable! [bungston, Jan 31 2006]
Thane Heins
http://www.google.c...earch?q=Thane+Heins
Google results for the guy that invented a motor that appears to be over unity but isn't. [marklar, Mar 03 2008]
(?) Not Perpetual Motion, but very exciting to watch
http://www.machines...ics-on-its-ear.html
[quantum_flux, Mar 06 2008]
[link]
|
| |
I agree that they're educational, but I don't think this is the forum for them. You'd want drawings, and probably more central control over the editing to actually come up with a didactically good explanation. |
|
| |
[bungston]: is an electron in orbit, in perpetual motion? |
|
| |
and yep - I agree with you. + |
|
| |
We shouldn't be closed-minded. Do you think the laws as we currently understand them are 'fixed'? Anyone? Anyone? |
|
| |
I'd love to pick apart some of these device ideas.. in the name of education. |
|
| |
<crank alert>
I believe that an over-unity device will one day be, dis-un-re-covered, and I believe that it will take the cooperation of a forum as diverse and eclectic as the halfbakery and its members for it to be accomplished.
<crank alert terminated> |
|
| |
It is not trivial to prove that Maxwell's demon and its variants are unworkable - I know, a mathematician friend, Sam, tried to explain a proof to me once. |
|
| |
I thought about posting an idea about a flat sheet of Maxwell's demon type gates that let molecules through in one direction, but not the other. Hey presto - a flying carpet! I didn't post because even though I don't fully understand why it would not work, I trust that such things have been considered and shown not to work. |
|
| |
However, the idea has promoted interesting discussions - "It won't work because it will require energy to open and close the gates" "But if we assume the gates to have arbitrarily low friction and mass, what then?" "Umm.. I don't know. It must have something to do with information. Where's Sam when you need him?" etc. In short, I approve. |
|
| |
Ironically, Slaith's posting seems to have been deleted. |
|
| |
I was about to post this category
request myself, after seeing a "marked
for deletion - perpetual motion"
annotation on another idea. |
|
| |
I agree completely with bungston -
finding the flaw in some of the more
imaginative perpetual motion posts is
immense fun and often educational. |
|
| |
I would disagree with [jutta]'s
annotation that we'd need drawings etc.
Where perpetual motion machines have
been posted (inadvertently or
advertently), they quite often stimulate
an interesting discussion which is no
less exciting or valid than that
associated with many other impossible
or impractical ideas. Frequently, some
insight or some elegant line of
reasoning emerges, and I think people
sometimes learn something as well. |
|
| |
Obviously, there will be lots of cases
where the idea is very naive (fans
driving wind turbines...), but most of
these would be liable for deletion as
being redundant. Other cases may be
more interesting. |
|
| |
It strikes me that "impossible" would be
grounds for deletion for many other HB
ideas: some of them are prohibited on
the grounds of physics rather than
practicality, yet they survive and
stimulate discussion. |
|
| |
I read about a guy recently who has made an over-unity magnetic motor. The only way he can get taken seriously is to keep telling people that it is not a perpetual motion device, just a more efficient motor. However, everyone that has seen it has said that it appears to be over unity, including someone from MIT. |
|
| |
Knee jerk MFDs are the typical response in here. Elsewhere, the reaction is harsher. I fully expect that someone will at some time produce a device that appears to be perpetual motion but actually takes advantage of potential energy that we weren't aware of. |
|
| |
Ah yes, I nearly forgot, my point is that if we don't listen, who will? |
|
| |
So, who exactly was the guy, and who
exactly was the 'someone from MIT'? It's
not an over-unity magnetic motor. My
point wasn't that perpetual motion might
be possible and therefore deserves a
recipient audience; my point was that
picking apart such devices is fun and
informative. |
|
| |
I found the guy and investigated further. It's not over unity and he never claimed it was, but people thought it was when they saw it [link]. |
|
| |
He is a good example of the kind of person that might enter an idea that is worth investigation and educates and possibly causes spin off (hehe) ideas. |
|
| |
My .02c on perpetual motion: |
|
| |
Type the first: "sucks" energy out of some resource (some people might believe that solar power or geothermal energy are perpetual, or at least, a machine that tapped into these resources is perpetual). We can discount this one immediately, as the net gain of power is entropy-okay. |
|
| |
Item the second: "Creates" energy, sometimes with magnet "magic" or gravity "magic", or fluidic "magic" or some combination of all of them. |
|
| |
To the purveyors of #2, I attempt to point out that since E=mc^2, then M=e/(c^2). This means that given a very large quantity of energy, it is possible, through a currently untested method, to "assemble" a very tiny amount of matter. |
|
| |
My hope is that since matter is something people can see and touch, they'll think "hey, if i created enough energy, then it could be turned into matter. How could matter possibly appear from nowhere? Wow, perpetual motion is silly afterall. " |
|
| |
Admittedly, I've never convinced someone that perpetual motion doesn't make sense with that bit, but I don't give up easily. |
|
| |
Isn't that, in a nutshell, how anti-matter is created? |
|
| |
In a nutshell, no, it isn't. |
|
| |
No, you're thinking of nuts. |
|
| |
[quantum_flux] that's the same guy I was talking about. |
|
| |