Perpetual motion

[Allcanadian]

I thought you guys might like this article, it is by far the most common sense rationalization of how absurd the general arguement is against perpetual motion.
http://www.duschl-engineering.de/Fac...otion%2038.pdf

I like these paragraphs---

“So far as anyone knows, there is no theoretical time limit to how long an unaided current could be sustained in a superconducting circuit. If you're thinking this appears to be a form of perpetual motion, you're correct! Contrary to popular belief, there is no law of physics prohibiting perpetual motion; rather, the prohibition stands against any machine or system generating more energy than it consumes…”

Yet many scientists and engineers still seem to reason along lines similar to Planck’s statement. They erroneously assume that “perpetual motion” is against the laws of physics. They erroneously infer that a system in perpetual motion would continually do work without any energy input—when basic perpetual motion actually has nothing at all to do with a machine receiving extra energy or doing work. Instead, it has to do with a system placed in motion remaining perpetually in that state of motion unless and until acted upon by an external force that changes it.

This gets to the very heart of the matter, the fact that many people have confused the context and terminology relating to perpetual motion. Physics states catagorically that everything is in perpetual motion--period, but this does not mean anything has gained energy in any way, the conservation of energy will continue to hold true as it should.
Regards
AC

[elias]

Hi

How can we be sure that he total energy of the universe is conserved? Have we measured it? This is only a guess or a belief, nothing more. If the universe is infinite, then the total energy of it is infinite, and it doesn't make sense to even measure it.

Most of the people's universe doesn't extend beyond Earth, and it is reasonable that we think that everything is finite, because we think that Earth is a finite place, with finite amount of molecules.

I thought you guys might like this article, it is by far the most common sense rationalization of how absurd the general arguement is against perpetual motion.
http://www.duschl-engineering.de/Fac...otion%2038.pdf

I like these paragraphs---



This gets to the very heart of the matter, the fact that many people have confused the context and terminology relating to perpetual motion. Physics states catagorically that everything is in perpetual motion--period, but this does not mean anything has gained energy in any way, the conservation of energy will continue to hold true as it should.
Regards
AC

[Allcanadian]

@Elias

How can we be sure that he total energy of the universe is conserved? Have we measured it? This is only a guess or a belief, nothing more. If the universe is infinite, then the total energy of it is infinite, and it doesn't make sense to even measure it.

If the universe is infinite, then the total energy of it is infinite

This is only a guess or a belief, nothing more, lol, the fact is we do not know and I cannot say we ever will. I hope you can appreciate how pointless the argument against perpetual motion is, it is a circular argument that would seem to feed on itself like a snake eating it's tail. The scientific community is always offering pointless interpretations or circular arguments to confuse this issue as well.
The whole point of my post was to convey one simple message and that is perpetual motion is real. Matter may transform to energy or vice versa but they are perpetual thus this flawed conception that universal motion will simply run down is unjustified.
From this message we can say that this energy is available everywhere and it is only a matter of time before we learn how to harness it. The fact that energy is available everywhere perpetually for our use should be our primary concern not semantics.
Regards
AC

[rickoff]

Reply to AC:

As quoted by AC:

“So far as anyone knows, there is no theoretical time limit to how long an unaided current could be sustained in a superconducting circuit. If you're thinking this appears to be a form of perpetual motion, you're correct! …”

Hi AC,

Regarding the above quote, I'd have to say that the assumption is incorrect, and is not a good example of perpetual motion. While I agree that a current could be sustained indefinitely in a looped superconducting wire, an external energy and influence is obviously needed to maintain the superconducting material at a precisely controlled temperature at or near absolute zero, and that is neither easily done nor self-sustainable.

I do agree, however, that the universe is in a state of perpetual motion, that energy exists throughout the universe, and that such energy can be harnessed.

Best regards to you,

Rick

[witsend]

As quoted by AC:



Hi AC,

Regarding the above quote, I'd have to say that the assumption is incorrect, and is not a good example of perpetual motion. While I agree that a current could be sustained indefinitely in a looped superconducting wire, an external energy and influence is obviously needed to maintain the superconducting material at a precisely controlled temperature at or near absolute zero, and that is neither easily done nor self-sustainable.

I do agree, however, that the universe is in a state of perpetual motion, that energy exists throughout the universe, and that such energy can be harnessed.

Best regards to you,

Rick

Saw this thread and hope no-one minds my penny's worth. If superconductors sustain a current at zero or sub-zero conditions, presumably such conditions would be available in space. Therefore, without further energy input it would be theoretically possible to sustain a current there and indefinitely without that input of extra energy. Therefore is perpetual motion theoretically feasible?

In fact it may be argued that the exceptions to perpetual motion are only evident in proximation to gravitational fields - where gross matter tends to a state of rest. Maybe? But I agree with all of you. Nothing can be held in a state of rest outside a gravitational field - and particles don't respond to gravity - so - perpetual motion is actually everywhere - at least on the particulate or subatomic levels.

But the question as to whether all operates in a closed system? I think this is simply a matter of choice. Personally I can't get my head around the idea of infinity. So I tend to put boundaries in ... all over the place. LOL

[h20power]

First big mistake I see everyone make is thinking that the Laws of Thermo Dynamic's are Laws in the first place when they are not. They are postulates not Laws. They mostly break down when trying to desicribe living things as most living things tend to bend the rules a bit.

There is a Proposed Fifth Law of Thermodynamics that tries to answer such questions of living things.
A Proposed Fifth Law of Thermodynamics

Now if man figures out how living things work and taps into that enregy then will it not be out of the narrow scope of the 1st and 2nd laws? Just a question no real point being made here just asking questions.


h2opower.

[morpher44]

when man figures out...

Now if man figures out how living things work and taps into that enregy then will it not be out of the narrow scope of the 1st and 2nd laws? Just a question no real point being made here just asking questions.

I thought we did ... long ago. Oxes pulling carts. Horses
for transportation. Monkeys to collect coins. Etc.

A comedian -- I forget who -- was pointing out that he
can barely look at someone making a call on a pay phone.
That is almost Ahmish.

Ok .. you probably meant something more along the lines
of an Electric Eel.
Electric Eels Info: WhoZoo
Those suckers can generate a wopping 600V in a single
discharge.
The fishes metabolism recharges biological batteries stored
in its tail section.
WOW!

[Allcanadian]

@Witsend

Saw this thread and hope no-one minds my penny's worth. If superconductors sustain a current at zero or sub-zero conditions, presumably such conditions would be available in space. Therefore, without further energy input it would be theoretically possible to sustain a current there and indefinitely without that input of extra energy. Therefore is perpetual motion theoretically feasible?

You made some excellent points and I was following this line of reasoning as well, if superconductivity of most all materials lies within the 3K (Kelvin) boundary then to some extent superconductivity as we know it could be considered as little more than reproducing the properties of space falling near 3K . It should not require a great stretch of the imagination to consider that resistance as we know it disappears under high vacuum and low temperature which are the fundamental properties of outer space.

In fact it may be argued that the exceptions to perpetual motion are only evident in proximation to gravitational fields - where gross matter tends to a state of rest. Maybe? But I agree with all of you. Nothing can be held in a state of rest outside a gravitational field - and particles don't respond to gravity - so - perpetual motion is actually everywhere - at least on the particulate or subatomic levels.

I would agree, it would seem that all space is naturally superconductive or loss-less until gross matter is introduced. At this point solar radiations can effect the matter diminishing superconductivity, it would seem superconductivity in space would depend on whether the matter is in the shadow of another mass (3K) or under the influence of solar radiation which naturally heats objects. Concerning gross matter and particles, it does seem odd that we can consider any tangible object to be at rest yet we know for certain that every underlying constituent part of it is in perpetual motion at incredible velocities. It would seem to be a magic trick of epic proportions to be able to separate the whole of matter from every single part that constitutes it.

But the question as to whether all operates in a closed system? I think this is simply a matter of choice. Personally I can't get my head around the idea of infinity. So I tend to put boundaries in ... all over the place. LOL

I think people need boundaries to put things in perspective so that we are not overwhelmed by what we know but refuse to believe.
Regards
AC

[rickoff]

If superconductors sustain a current at zero or sub-zero conditions, presumably such conditions would be available in space. Therefore, without further energy input it would be theoretically possible to sustain a current there and indefinitely without that input of extra energy. Therefore is perpetual motion theoretically feasible?

Hi Rosemary,

Funny that you mentioned space. When writing my post, I thought of qualifying my statement by adding the words, "except perhaps in outer space," at the end. I decided not to do that, though, for two reasons:
1. I considered the heating effects of radiation from the sun, as AC pointed out later on.
2. I felt that while it could in fact be theoretically feasible to sustain a current, in a superconductor, indefinitely in outer space under controlled conditions, it is those very controlled conditions which would eventually break down. Shading the superconductor with effective shielding, for example, might be possible if the space station was constantly kept oriented in such a way as to prevent sunlight from reaching the superconductor. That part is theoretically feasible, but eventually the space station will have to respond to an emergency maneuver, changing its orientation to avoid collision with space junk, perhaps leaving the superconductor more vulnerable to heat. Then too, the space station regularly is struck by small shards of space junk that, while not disabling it, do cause damage, and no matter where the superconductor is located it would be just as vulnerable. And even if we move the semiconductor way beyond the field of space junk, eventually it would be struck by some stellar object that would destroy or disable it. Therefore, while the concept may be theoretically possible, I do not see it as a practical possibility for demonstrating true perpetual motion.

It is fun, though, to contemplate subjects such as this.

Best wishes,

Rick

[elias]

Existence, is in itself perpetual, if it were not, then it was not existence it was nothingness.

[Stealth]

I would like to say the laws of thermodynamics are not laws, only theories. Just as most all other subjects that we pursue. Most all scientific scrutiny on any subject can leave big holes for injecting more theory into the equation. Lets face it, we are only grasping at straws in most of our theories.
Only through very precise scientific evaluation and experimentation can we become realitively sure of our theories enough to proclaim them laws. Even then, the universe may operate ocassionaly erratically enough to make us doubt our own data. Relativity itself is also just a theory. We don't yet have the capacity to build instruments sensitive or precise enough to measure all the complexities of our theories. We can only theorize what we observe, and we all know that sometimes these obsevations can be decieving. As we continue to develope new technology, we may some day find what we thought were laws are actually opposite of the true nature of the universe. To prove my point, we have been using electricity and magnetism for a century or more and still we don't know what they are.Good Luck. ... Stealth

[Allcanadian]

@H20power

First big mistake I see everyone make is thinking that the Laws of Thermo Dynamic's are Laws in the first place when they are not. They are postulates not Laws. They mostly break down when trying to desicribe living things as most living things tend to bend the rules a bit.
There is a Proposed Fifth Law of Thermodynamics that tries to answer such questions of living things.
A Proposed Fifth Law of Thermodynamics
Now if man figures out how living things work and taps into that enregy then will it not be out of the narrow scope of the 1st and 2nd laws? Just a question no real point being made here just asking questions.

And you are asking very good questions I have pity for the person who believes we live alone in a universe dying a slow heat death, although it does tell you something of the psyche of such practical people.
That link you provided was very interesting as I have done a great deal of research into negative entropy or a better term is syntropy-- or Life. I think few people understand the significance of syntropy or how it relates to essentially everything around us. Consider the very term thermodynamics ie...Thermo- descended from Greek: Θερμότητα, meaning heat, is a prefix referring to heat or temperature. Heat is the lowest form of energy, it disintegrates,fragments,expands and takes apart matter, the very term is symbolic of death. Once again, this should tell you something of the psyche of the people who invented and continue to worship thermo-dynamics, the effects of forces of heat death or entropy. On the opposite end of the spectrum we have electro-dynamics relating to electric and magnetic fields. These fields tend to merge,integrate or cohere things into bigger things unless forced to do otherwise, gravity could be included in this group. I don't think we have to be a rocket scientist to understand fire tends to destroy things and static electricity and magnetism tend to pull things together.
It is also interesting to note that Tesla often referred to "animating" his circuits, ie... an·i·mate- To give life to; fill with life. His circuits had very little resistance and utilized high voltage/high frequency currents which produced almost no heat losses. He utilized ultra-fast inductive and capacitive discharges to raise the efficiency, yet 100 years later we still use low voltage/low frequency incandescent light bulbs which generate 80% heat and 20% light, lol.
It may not be readily apparent but there is a great deal of psychology and symbolism involved in why we perceive things the way we do, we have been trained to equate heat with energy in an absolute sense, in a way we worship death as we have made it an indirect yet fundamental part of out lives and beliefs. I have found there are many benefits to studying life and living things and applying their principals and properties to circuits.
Regards
AC

[ren]

@H20power


And you are asking very good questions I have pity for the person who believes we live alone in a universe dying a slow heat death, although it does tell you something of the psyche of such practical people.
That link you provided was very interesting as I have done a great deal of research into negative entropy or a better term is syntropy-- or Life. I think few people understand the significance of syntropy or how it relates to essentially everything around us. Consider the very term thermodynamics ie...Thermo- descended from Greek: Θερμότητα, meaning heat, is a prefix referring to heat or temperature. Heat is the lowest form of energy, it disintegrates,fragments,expands and takes apart matter, the very term is symbolic of death. Once again, this should tell you something of the psyche of the people who invented and continue to worship thermo-dynamics, the effects of forces of heat death or entropy. On the opposite end of the spectrum we have electro-dynamics relating to electric and magnetic fields. These fields tend to merge,integrate or cohere things into bigger things unless forced to do otherwise, gravity could be included in this group. I don't think we have to be a rocket scientist to understand fire tends to destroy things and static electricity and magnetism tend to pull things together.
It is also interesting to note that Tesla often referred to "animating" his circuits, ie... an·i·mate- To give life to; fill with life. His circuits had very little resistance and utilized high voltage/high frequency currents which produced almost no heat losses. He utilized ultra-fast inductive and capacitive discharges to raise the efficiency, yet 100 years later we still use low voltage/low frequency incandescent light bulbs which generate 80% heat and 20% light, lol.
It may not be readily apparent but there is a great deal of psychology and symbolism involved in why we perceive things the way we do, we have been trained to equate heat with energy in an absolute sense, in a way we worship death as we have made it an indirect yet fundamental part of out lives and beliefs. I have found there are many benefits to studying life and living things and applying their principals and properties to circuits.
Regards
AC

VERY well put AC

[SDK]

Hi Rosemary,

Funny that you mentioned space. When writing my post, I thought of qualifying my statement by adding the words, "except perhaps in outer space," at the end. I decided not to do that, though, for two reasons:
1. I considered the heating effects of radiation from the sun, as AC pointed out later on.
2. I felt that while it could in fact be theoretically feasible to sustain a current, in a superconductor, indefinitely in outer space under controlled conditions, it is those very controlled conditions which would eventually break down. Shading the superconductor with effective shielding, for example, might be possible if the space station was constantly kept oriented in such a way as to prevent sunlight from reaching the superconductor. That part is theoretically feasible, but eventually the space station will have to respond to an emergency maneuver, changing its orientation to avoid collision with space junk, perhaps leaving the superconductor more vulnerable to heat. Then too, the space station regularly is struck by small shards of space junk that, while not disabling it, do cause damage, and no matter where the superconductor is located it would be just as vulnerable. And even if we move the semiconductor way beyond the field of space junk, eventually it would be struck by some stellar object that would destroy or disable it. Therefore, while the concept may be theoretically possible, I do not see it as a practical possibility for demonstrating true perpetual motion.

It is fun, though, to contemplate subjects such as this.

Best wishes,

Rick

I am sorry to state Rick that you are wrong on that one.

High temperature superconductors function at up to - 75 Celsius. A super conductive ring in space stands no chance to be heated to this temperature in lets say Earth orbit. That is number one.

Taking it out of orbit will require an external force, which does not disprove the perpetual motion of the current, if the current is actually what is being claimed, that is a flow of electrons, as well as the potential perpetual motion in the orbit itself, if not acted upon, providing the theory of gravitation is correct.

With kind regards, Slavek.