Zero Point Energy, Perpetual motion is possible

[Laserman532]

i remember road trips on the highways in central texas over 50 years ago and about every 25 miles was a blue tin roof restaurant / curio shop called Stucky's that sold those drinking birds. My parents would never buy me one because they were glass and was afraid I would break it instead they bought me the rubber indian throwing hatchet (complete with feathers) which I broke before I got in the car. Not having one of those drinking birds has probably scarred me for life.

Wonder what it would do in the vacuum of space.

if each bird produces 1 what you will need 14,000 of them to run a 168

[danielbriggs]

if each bird produces 1 what you will need 14,000 of them to run a 168

That's a lotta questions to answer!!

[catalanjo]

Problem is you would need more dam water for the birds to "drink" than you would need to cool the laser
Cheers

[Zoof]

zoof - A levitron in pure vacuum and in super conducting state ( at 0 K ??) would turn for ever - I suppose.

in a "perfect vacuum" would the gyroscopic effects of the spinning top tend to move the top away from the base or would the mass of the base have enough gravitational effects to hold them in proper relation to each other....uninspired minds want to know

OMG...levitrons in space, we are really reaching here

just to finish this off: I believe you confuse a ``pure vacuum'' and being is space...... two complete different things IMO. Vacuum will not affect gravity nor gyroscopic effects.

I'm allergic to scientific sounding BS - you hiding your ignorance behind "I can elaborate but why would I?" was just an irresistible itch.

cheers, better focus on the birds now...

[Laserman532]

any way, you brought up the levitron which was not the topic of discussion, and avoided free energy which was the topic. You definitely beyond a shadow of a doubt proved that you have earned your PHD in levitron and that I know nothing of this magical toy, are you happy now? You win, I loose, You are brilliant im a jester.

we left the topic of hands on real world application of science and went into the realm of "no, im smarter than you because i have a PHD in magnetism". If, you feel better for belittling me by your vast knowledge in physics compared to my hands on experiments of a novice, then so be it.

Im sure you will tear me a new asshole but...elaborate i will, i view lines of flux (whether right or wrong) as wire not as a smooth sphere. I saw the levitron spinning top as two opposing fields of wire rubbing together like fingerprints not like two pieces of glass with a lubricant between them. I mentioned air resistance and this "friction", you dazzeled us with wobble and eddy currents. Asshole is exposed and prepared for your tearing doctor.

it is obvious that you dont know everything because you left yourself an out with this statement.

zoof - A levitron in pure vacuum and in super conducting state ( at 0 K ??) would turn for ever - I suppose.

[Zoof]

Hey Pat, stop acting like your wife

As far as I see it, I have NOT been belittling you - I hope you see that.
Never have I said anything about your intelligence or skills.
Never have I been disrespectful of you as a person.
I have no idea what your education level is, but I left it out of the discussion as I did with mine - I did not pull some academic rank on you.

I challenged you by saying that you were wrong on a number of points. My arguments were based on content, knowledge, semantics, and reasoning. All fair on a forum like this. Yes, I shot a salvo at you, but get over it already!

Often PL is a pit of a pissing contest in terms of smarts, but all for the fun of it.

Now I'm going to give this one a rest.

[Laserman532]

Hey Pat, stop acting like your wife

As far as I see it, I have NOT been belittling you - I hope you see that.
Never have I said anything about your intelligence or skills.
Never have I been disrespectful of you as a person.
I have no idea what your education level is, but I left it out of the discussion as I did with mine - I did not pull some academic rank on you.

I challenged you by saying that you were wrong on a number of points. My arguments were based on content, knowledge, semantics, and reasoning. All fair on a forum like this. Yes, I shot a salvo at you, but get over it already!

Often PL is a pit of a pissing contest in terms of smarts, but all for the fun of it.

Now I'm going to give this one a rest.

zoof- Never have I said anything about your intelligence or skills.

zoof - I'm allergic to scientific sounding BS - you hiding your ignorance behind "I can elaborate but why would I?" was just an irresistible itch.

I did not elaborate because i do not have the vocabulary to explain "my thoughts" in a post on a internet forum. If I had a real time white board i could have drawn it easier than explain it. I do know the difference between a vacuum in a bell jar and the vacuum of space. I would assume (i have no data or mathematical explanation) that the magnetic flux of repelling forces would act differently in a vacuum of a bell jar verses the vacuum of space due to gravitational forces...i suppose.

we will stick with the "facts" that wobble and eddy currents and possibly air resistance slows the top down...i suppose

granted...my AAS degree in lasers and electro optics earned in 1978 lack the academic prowess to properly explain phenomena associated with magnet flux to a intellectually superior individual as yourself. You win!

[Zoof]

Ignorance... Well, should I have written ``lack of knowledge on this particular topic''? It was not meant as an insult. :-/

YAWN

[norty303]

Well, that's uncomfortable reading....

'You're crap and I'm better'
'Ok, so you win, stop calling me crap'
'I never said you were crap!'
'Yes you did <crap quote>'
'Oh, well I never meant it, but whatever <dismissive hand gesture>'

[Pianoman]

This back and forth conversation was entertaining. Is this really what I should be expecting from marriage?

So.... magnetic motors...

[Laserman532]

Well, that's uncomfortable reading....

'You're crap and I'm better'
'Ok, so you win, stop calling me crap'
'I never said you were crap!'
'Yes you did <crap quote>'
'Oh, well I never meant it, but whatever <dismissive hand gesture>'

classic! ....LOL...nice norty

[Laserman532]

This back and forth conversation was entertaining. Is this really what I should be expecting from marriage?

So.... magnetic motors...

research 2nd law of thermodynamics

[dnar]

Free energy devices, energy from the vacuum etc. all fly in the face of some pretty well established scientific laws and theories.

There is no free lunch.

As for removing one pole from a magnet, , lol. I have some west/east pole magnets going cheap if your interested. I can remove the east pole for an extra $2.

[DMills]

The best paraphrase of the laws of thermodynamics I have ever seen:

1: You cannot win.
2: You cannot break even.
3: You cannot even quit the game.....

Thermodynamics is interesting in that it is one of the few cases in semi recent engineering and science where the machines pre date the theory, thermodynamics is newer then the early steam and atmospheric engines!

That said, in spite of many attempts there has been NO machine yet invented that violates the above laws (The originals, not the paraphrase), and I for one would be **very** surprised to see one that did.

Magnets won't do it (the field forms a closed surface), electrostatics wont do it (same reason, different field), simple mechanical systems are just very unlikely to do it (The obvious ones have been done to death with no result).
For mechanical systems friction is actually an invalid excuse as for any such system doing meaningful work is equivalent to adding friction.

Now if you actually have the extraordanary evidence to back up an extraordanary claim, then get with someone who knows the forms and Physical Review Letters WILL fight Nature for publication, no question.

The second law is a bear.

Regards, Dan.

[Pianoman]

I've started reading a bit on thermodynamics, fun stuff. haha

Here is another one that you know simply isn't real, but is fun to read about. This guy actually has quite a following according to google. He claims that he built several working models that were all promptly confiscated and destroyed by "big corporations." Quite an interesting read really. He seems so convinced that he solved the world's energy problems . There is also an abundance of "proof" videos on youtube, that have everything but proof in them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searl_Effect_Generator

Jonathan

[Zoof]

classic! ....LOL...nice norty

no it is not..... this is a classic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y (first part: argument)

<<letting this pointless argument go>>

Thermodynamics, I was recently fascinated by the stirling engine. It does not break any laws of thermodynamics but it is IMHO a very elegant demonstration of how a temperature difference can be used to generate mechanical energy (friction) from a heat flow.
This one is convincing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPafqSDVYIg and yes it stops as soon a the cup of tea that it is sitting on has cooled down far enough.

Indeed, early steam engines predated thermodynamic theory. What is fascinating is the improvement that could be made after understanding theory. If I'm not mistaking, the jet engine and the stirling engine are pure results of searches for the implementation of particular thermodynamic cycles. Of course, the laser is the result of a search for the implementation of some of Einstein's principles - a solution looking for a problem.

edit: and this one is worth a look, it runs on a 2 degree temp dif.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ycOy...eature=related

[beamann]

I'LL take 200 west East magnets, and I'll pay $4.00 extra for each one you mark for the seperation point ,That way i'll save $2.00 each when I seperate them my self, and i'll pay extra for flate rate over night dilevery.
What is your PainPal account number?
Also my RGB, the grn line is extremely bright and need to add a dark light module to tame it down, in what mw do you have?

[beamann]

=1 http://www.energyharvestingjournal.c....asp?sessionid

This a unique energey source that could be some what perpetual as long as the sun holds up.

[Xytrell]

Ok, I've been slicing all day.. My bread is now 1 atom thick.. I can't cut it anymore with this butter knife!

I don't think it can still be called bread since a starch molecule is larger than one atom.

[heroic]

This all misses the point, which is that magnets don't create free energy. In fact, a magnet is an energy storage device.

I don't have a PhD in anything, or even a degree, but I think I can explain this pretty well.

Magnets work the way they do because some materials have what is called a magnetic dipole; this is to say, if you look at a piece of steel, say, with magnetic eyes, you will see that it is made up of little particles that look, from a magnetic point of view, like a matchstick, with one end 'north' and the other 'south'.

In normal, non-magnetized steel, the arrangement of these little magnetic domains is random, like you'd get if you took a bunch of matchsticks and dumped them out at random. Their net magnetic field is therefore pretty much zero since they are very small and tend to cancel each other out.

To understand energy, you need to know about 'entropy', which is a measure of the disorder is a system. You can extract energy from a system that has low entropy, and it takes energy to reduce the entropy of a system. For example, to sort all your matchsticks so they point the same way, you have to do work in rearranging them.

When you take your piece of steel and move the magnetic domains so they align, you find that the tiny magnetic fields reinforce each other- just like if you take two full-sized magnets and put them together, they work together. Energy is absorbed by the process of magnetization, since it works by moving the domains around. (You can do it by applying a strong enough external magnetic field, or by physically directing the process of crystal growth in molten steel, or you might even be able to do it by physically disassembling the metal and turning the domains around if you had a sufficiently long attention span and an atomic force microscope.)

The entropy of the steel after magnetization is lower than it was before, so it has stored some energy.

When you ask that magnet to move something, the magnetic dipoles in whatever you move, get acted upon by forces- but so do the magnetic dipoles in the magnet doing the moving. Over time, magnets lose strength because the dipoles gradually lose their alignment and return to their original random orientation. The ability of the material to fix the dipoles in position is called "coercivity", and crystalline metals tend to be better at it because they reinforce their own structure better.

In short, therefore, magnets aren't magic. They, like any other energetic material, gradually return to the dust from whence they came, and what's more, they do it faster the more you ask them to do work.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Pianoman, but free energy is a myth.

[catalanjo]

Magnets work the way they do because some materials have what is called a magnetic dipole; .....In short, therefore, magnets aren't magic. .

AHA! so it's magnetic dipoles that are MAGIC !

Cheers

[beamann]

" Magnets work the way they do because some materials have what is called a magnetic dipole;"

Well said heroic, to help the understanding of what is magnetic and what is not, is simple.
All things and I do mean all things are magnatisable, from netron stars to underware, it's their Permeability that dictates if they stay dipole aligned, a P of 1 indecatets that the magnetic charge placed on a item will tend to stay dipole aligned.
A P of 0 dictates that dipole alignment will decy immieditly if the magnetic influence is removed. Rail guns, MRI's, frogs in a super conductive magnetic field, (levitate in a magnetic bottle). a simple proof of this is to take a sheet of coper, magnitic compass, and magnet.
1) I.D. one pole of the magnet by using the compass, mark that pole.
2) place marked pole of the magnet agianst the coper sheet so that the other pole(oposite) is 180 degrees from the face of the coper sheet.
3) take a compass reading from the oposite side of the coper sheet, the side the magnet IS NOT on.
RESULT: the magnetic influence on the magnetic induction side is one pole reading N or S, and the magnetic result on the other side of the coper sheet is a oposite magnetic pole reading, proveing the the coper plate is magnatized and not just a pass threw of magnetic lines witch if this was so, it would read the same polarity of the intrducing pole of the influencing magnet.

[heroic]

AHA! so it's magnetic dipoles that are MAGIC !

No. There is a difference between "magic" and "things that are complicated".

[catalanjo]

No. There is a difference between "magic" and "things that are complicated".

I am not sure whether or not you are proposing that something isn't magic if it is complicated.

Stephen Wolfram of "Mathematica" fame in his book " A New Kind of Science", introduces the idea of "complication", as a result of very very very large numbers of simple reiterations by exploring some very surprising "fractals".
Maybe I am just a bit dense, but once I get past simple quantum theory and the math disappears into six dimensions and going upwards ............ I call it magic.

OK so what is the complicated "thing" in a magnetic dipole ?

Great if you could avoid "magnetic" in the answer !

I once had a girlfriend who constantly failed her physics exams cos she thought everybody except her knew exactly what an electric charge actually was ! Once I had managed to convinced her that NO ONE KNOWS what it is (just a name given to an observable phenomenon) she passed them all with flying colours!

A 9v battery on the tongue gave my kids an idea of what electricity actually is.
The complicated bit is usually how "it" behaves.

How do YOU distinguish between unimaginably complicated and MAGIC ?

Cheers

[buffo]

Thermodynamics, I was recently fascinated by the stirling engine. It does not break any laws of thermodynamics but it is IMHO a very elegant demonstration of how a temperature difference can be used to generate mechanical energy (friction) from a heat flow.

Heat engines are fascinating, but they are among the most inefficient engines around. Google "Carnot Efficiency" and read up on how lousy these engines really are. (All of them!)

Indeed, early steam engines predated thermodynamic theory. What is fascinating is the improvement that could be made after understanding theory.

Up to the limit of Carnot Efficiency, yes. Which for all intents and purposes is going be less than 50% in nearly every case.

If I'm not mistaking, the jet engine and the stirling engine are pure results of searches for the implementation of particular thermodynamic cycles.

Not exactly. They are common examples of certain cycles (well, the jet is a bit of stretch even there), but the driving forces behind their development were the practical uses of these engines (that is, engineering), rather than confirmation of a theory (that is, pure research).

Adam