 |
There are currently, 288 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Logical analysis on the old concept of ''perpetual motion is forbidden''
Posted on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 @ 02:07:00 UTC by vlad
|
|
From a recent Bearden correspondence:
...We have also done a long-needed logical analysis on the hoary old concept of "perpetual motion is forbidden". Here is a short synopsis:
Summary: The professional skeptics are quite naïve when they forbid perpetual motion and also blast COP>1.0 for an electrical system as being perpetual motion machine stuff. Perpetual (continuous) motion is not forbidden by the laws of physics, but is required! In fact, a thing placed in motion remains in perpetual (continuous) motion (according to Newton's first law) until acted upon by an external force to change its motion (according to Newton's second law)...
So in stating that perpetual motion itself is forbidden, the usual skeptic has inadvertently assumed that Newton's first two laws are false. That of course is falling all the way back to Aristotle's original error in thinking that, to have a thing remain in motion, one had to continuously feed energy into it and do work on it, because it had to continuously expend work to keep moving. That is flatly not true, of course, as any physicist today well knows. For an object once in motion, to continue in perpetual (continuous) motion in an inertial frame does not require work to be done by the object and it requires no additional energy input to it. Else we would have to throw out every high school and college sophomore physics book on earth, and most of physics is wrong.
Having made one great error by starting with a false premise, the skeptics then further compound the error. A common but gross non sequitur then made by the skeptics is to --- erroneously --- equate the falsity ["perpetual (continuous) motion is forbidden"] with a truth ["continuous work without any energy input is forbidden"]. The second statement is true and doing work without any energy input is indeed impossible unless the system has infinite energy to begin with!
[However, here we point out that, in quantum field theory, any charge actually consists of an infinite bare charge in the center, clustered around by a screening infinite virtual charge of opposite sign. The difference between the two infinite charge values is finite, and is the commonly observed "magnitude of the charge" seen and measured by the external observer. So if we accept QFT, then the charge is able to violate the second "truth" statement because it has two infinite charge values which contain infinite energy, hence can continuously emit a finite rate of energy flow indefinitely.]
But for finite systems, violating the "truth" (second) statement would violate the conservation of energy law, of course, because energy would have to be created from nothing. And so the second statement is quite true, at least for finite systems. However, the logical non sequitur is in having first stated a falsity (perpetual motion is forbidden) and then equating that primary falsity as the latter truth (continuous work without necessary energy input is impossible), implying that the true second clause which everyone knows is true (for finite systems), proves the first false clause also to be true.
That gross illogical misinterpretation has been around a very long time, and it is astonishing that so many scientists and engineers and scientific journals and magazines continue to fall for it without even a passing thought. E.g., here is Max Plank's erroneous statement of the second law of thermodynamics:
"It is in no way possible, either by mechanical, thermal, chemical, or other devices, to obtain perpetual motion, i.e., it is impossible to construct an engine which will work in a cycle and produce continuous work, or kinetic energy, from nothing." [Max Planck, Treatise on Thermodynamics, 3rd ed., Dover, New York, 1945.]
There you see the falsity (first statement) equated to a truth (second statement), which thus is a non sequitur. Planck's statement contains both a false premise and a non sequitur, as presented above, hence it falsifies itself by elementary logic.
Yet so far as I am aware, no one else seems to have challenged Planck's statement before, at least in logical analysis terms!
Also, in accepting the conventional classical Maxwell-Heaviside EM model, all the skeptics already accept (unwittingly) a model that assumes that every charge in the universe freely creates energy out of nothing at all, and continuously pours it out freely. The model implicitly assumes that every EM field, potential, and every joule of EM energy in the universe was and is created --- from nothing at all --- this way, by the associated source charge(s). So as long as they unwittingly accept the creation of energy on a mind-boggling massive scale, from nothing at all, then the arch skeptics themselves are the greatest advocates in human history of forbidden continuously working machines without any energy input, with the machines creating energy from nothing at all. And they are so naive that they do not even recognize it!
And then many skeptics erroneously equate coefficient of performance (COP) of COP>1.0, as being a forbidden working system without the necessary energy input! That too is false; COP>1.0 merely means the environment puts in some of the input energy for free, so that what one gets out of the machine is greater than what the OPERATOR HIMSELF inputs to it. The EFFICIENCY ratio expressed in percentage analyzes how much useful work output or energy output one gets for the TOTAL energy input from all sources. That ratio is never greater than 100%, which would require a perfect system with no losses at all. For a real system with losses, the efficiency of the system is always less than 100%.
On the other hand, COEFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE evaluates the "cost versus benefit" to the operator for his own input (for his cost), regardless of what additional energy is freely input by the environment. If the operator inputs nothing and the environment inputs all the required energy, then the system COP = infinity --- e.g., as for a windmill or a waterwheel or a solar cell. The EFFICIENCY, however --- i.e., the useful output divided by the TOTAL energy input from all sources --- can never be greater than 100%.
So a common solar cell sitting in the sunlight may have only 17% efficiency, while its COP = infinity because the operator inputs none of the input energy at all. A common home heat pump may have an efficiency of 50% or so, but a good one will have COP = 4.0 under nominal good conditions. And so on.
90% of the electrical engineers and many scientists also are not really aware of the precise difference between efficiency and COP as stated above. I have had to correct quite a few persons on that very subject. Many textbooks also sometimes confuse efficiency and COP. No one in his right mind (except unwittingly the skeptics and conventional scientists not questioning the Maxwell-Heaviside theory!) advocates system efficiency of greater than 100%, since that really would require creation of energy from nothing!
But even on that, one has to deal with the great Hilbert's statement. Shortly after Einstein's theory of General Relativity was published, Hilbert wrote:
"I assert... that for the general theory of relativity, i.e., in the case of general invariance of the Hamiltonian function, energy equations... corresponding to the energy equations in orthogonally invariant theories do not exist at all. I could even take this circumstance as the characteristic feature of the general theory of relativity." [D. Hilbert, Gottingen Nachrichten, Vol. 4, 1917, p. 21.]
As pointed out by Logunov and Loskutov,
"Unfortunately, this remark of Hilbert was evidently not understood by his contemporaries, since neither Einstein himself nor other physicists recognized the fact that in general relativity conservation laws for energy, momentum, and angular momentum are in principle impossible."
But since classical Maxwell-Heaviside theory erroneously assumes a flat spacetime, even when the local energy density in the system (and therefore in local spacetime) changes, then this characteristic in general relativity is not encountered in the standard EM engineering theory. It also does not seem to have been adequately considered in thermodynamics as yet.
Leaving that possibility when spacetime is curved, we return to our analysis.
One can have COP>1.0 or even COP = infinity, and lots of systems already do. But most critics, even accepting the windmill and waterwheel, then state that COP>1.0 is impossible for an electrical power system. That is a false premise and experimentally falsified already.
One simple experimental proof for EM devices having COP>1.0 is that little solar cell, with its efficiency of say 17% and its COP = infinity. That means it wastes 83% of the energy it gets input to it by the sunlight, so it only outputs a useful 17% of what it receives. But since the operator inputs nothing at all, then the amount of that 17% output divided by zero (operator input) gives COP = infinity. All that COP = infinity means, is that one gets all the energy input for free from the environment, and so whatever work output is done by the system is also for free, regardless of how much energy the system wastes. The windmill, waterwheel, and sailboat have been doing that and exhibiting COP = infinity for many centuries. The solar cell and the source charge do it for electromagnetic systems.
Also, the gauge freedom principle in quantum field theory requires that the potential energy of a system can be freely changed at will, at any time. (In the real world, one may have to pay a little switching costs, but that can be made efficient to minimize it). It follows that by freely (or nearly freely) increasing the potential energy of an EM system appreciably, and then arranging the system so it dissipates that excess energy to power an external load, load-powering can be free except for switching costs. That this is not done in present electrical power systems must therefore be a fault in system design. And so it is. The standard closed current loop circuit takes half the extra energy collected in the potentialized (asymmetrically regauged) external circuit, then uses that half of the energy to perform work to destroy the source dipole in the generator that is extracting EM energy from the vacuum and providing the observable Poynting energy flow from the terminals, via the asymmetry of opposite charges. The other half of the external circuit's collected asymmetrical regauging energy is used to power the losses in the external circuit and the external load. Hence one gets out less work in the load than the work that was performed to destroy the source dipole. In a 100% efficient generator, it then requires as much additional shaft energy be input to the generator, as the amount of energy that was used to destroy the source dipole and cut off the energy flow from the vacuum. Hence one is always having to furnish more input energy to the system than the work one gets out in the load. That totally stupid circuit is universally used, and it guarantees that the free regauging of the system is symmetrical. In other words, all excess energy collected so freely by gauge freedom, is "locked up" to do only internal work on the system to produce and maintain a change in system stress. It specifically is prohibited from producing a net translation force that can translate electrons and deliver excess energy to the loads and losses, because it simultaneously deliberately delivers equal excess energy to destroy the continuous extraction of energy from the vacuum by the dipolarity previously established.
We pay the power company to engage in a giant wrestling match inside its own generators and lose!
So the arch skeptics' assumption that COP>1.0 electrical power systems means forbidden "perpetual motion" machines, which they then equate to machines continuously performing external work with no energy input, is total gibberish and always has been.
Meanwhile, in our analysis summarized above, the source charge and its continuous free extraction of EM energy from the vacuum, and its continual outpouring of real observable EM energy in all directions to form and continuously replenish its associated EM fields and potentials and their energy, has falsified the present statement of the second law of thermodynamics (several forms or statements are currently available). Consequently the second law requires revision. We have proposed the following as the necessary correction of the second law, which then becomes consistent with experiment and more advanced theory.
"First a negative entropy interaction occurs to produce some controlled order. Then that initial controlled order will either remain the same or be progressively disordered and decontrolled by subsequent entropic interactions, unless additional negative entropy interactions occur and intervene."
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
|
| "Logical analysis on the old concept of ''perpetual motion is forbidden''" | Login/Create an Account | 4 comments | Search Discussion |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Logical analysis on the old concept of ''perpetual motion is forbidden'' (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 @ 03:04:56 UTC | The term "Coefficient of Performance" (COP) is a term that only has meaning in connection with heat pumps, air conditioners and refrigerators. All are the same thing: a device that "pumps" heat from a low temperature source to a high temperature sink.
For a heat pump, the COP is the ratio of the heat power out to the electrical or mechanical power in. For a refrigerator or air conditioner, it's the heat power in divided by the electrical power in.
These systems neither create nor destroy any energy; it's all accounted for. A heat pump produces more heat power at its output than it consumes in electrical (or mechanical) power because it can extract the extra heat from the cold source, usually the outdoor environment. The only reason any electricity is required at all is because heat doesn't flow naturally from a cold object to a warm object; it has to be "pumped", just like pumping water uphill.
The theoretical upper limit to the COP depends on the temperatures of the two sides. It is exactly equal to the reciprocal of the Carnot efficiency of a heat engine operating between the same two temperatures, by allowing heat from the hot side to naturally flow "downhill" to the cold side. Since the Carnot efficiency is always less than one, the theoretical COP of a heat pump is always greater than one. Many real heat pumps have COPs of 5 or 6.
Many free energy enthusiasts are fascinated by this fact. ("Obsessed" is perhaps more apt.) It's almost as if you're getting something for nothing, which they've always been told is impossible. And if you can do that for heat, why not for electricity?
Well, you can't. Heat is special. It's a lower "class" of energy, doomed forever to be incompletely convertible into any other form of energy. Yes, you can convert heat energy into useful work (e.g., electricity), but only at the cost of also rejecting some of that heat at a lower temperature. If you have no lower temperature place to reject the required heat, then tough -- you can't convert *any* of it. This is the Second Law of thermodynamics, which governs the operation not only of heat engines but of countless other processes in nature, including living things.
In the special case of a heat pump, though, the Second Law actually works to our advantage -- for once. Because heat is a lower class of energy, it's a real waste to generate it directly from an expensive high-class premium energy form like electricity. We can make much better use of our premium energy to "modify" the free (but otherwise useless) heat energy that surrounds us in the environment. We modify that free environmental heat by using our premium energy to "pump" it up to the temperature that we want.
But the MEG is not a heat engine. Nor is it a heat pump. It is a device that consumes electricity and supposedly produces even more electricity. It allegedly draws the extra energy from the environment in the way that a heat pump draws free heat from its environment, but what *is* that free environmental source of energy? It certainly isn't heat, as the MEG doesn't get cold in operation. Also, the Second Law would get in the way, as we cannot produce *any* electricity from heat without a hot source and a cold sink, which the MEG does not have.
So it is alleged that the MEG draws its excess energy from something called the "quantum vacuum". Problem is, there is no reliable experimental evidence that such a thing actually exists and contains energy to be withdrawn.
No, the truth is much simpler. MEG does not produce more electricity than it consumes, so there is no need to hypothesize such a previously unknown source of energy. All claims to the contrary are simply in error; most are due to clearly abysmal lab work. The MEG is just a simple transformer, no more and no less.
Phil
|
|
|
illogical analysis (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Saturday, July 26, 2003 @ 22:07:30 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | A citation is deserved:
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/020803.htm
For such a shameless twisting of another author's words.
"It is in no way possible, either by mechanical, thermal, chemical, or other devices, to obtain perpetual motion, i.e., it is impossible to construct an engine which will work in a cycle and produce continuous work, or kinetic energy, from nothing." [Max Planck, Treatise on Thermodynamics, 3rd ed., Dover, New York, 1945.]
There you see the falsity (first statement) equated to a truth (second statement), which thus is a non sequitur. Planck's statement contains both a false premise and a non sequitur, as presented above, hence it falsifies itself by elementary logic.
No. Plank does not make an equivocation between a false statement and a true one. He makes a statement (theorem) and then a definition. The theorem clearly does not apply if definitions of "perpetual motion" other than the one Plank specifies are used. The next thing Plank writes should be a proof, motivation, or citation of proof. This is a standard progression in a math or physics book. |
|
|
|
|
