Re: Hot air can be created from thin air, but not destroyed .. Archived Message
Posted by John Monro on June 19, 2019, 12:11 pm, in reply to "Hot air can be created from thin air, but not destroyed .."
Thanks Shyaku, Point 2 - gravitational fields, electrical fields and permanent magnets are "sources of potential energy" - not really. a) gravity is not a source of energy. It is a force - You only extract energy from gravity if you first do something that gravity can act on. In doing this, you always expend more energy than you can regain. eg, a pump storage hydro or a helter-skelter. The energy that gravity extracts from your climbing to the top of the heater skelter or pumping water up a hill is indeed potential energy, but only because you put energy into providing it. The energy from hydro doesn't come from gravity or the dam or the fall of water, but from the sun lifting the water vapour into the air for it to fall as rain in the dam's catchment. b) magnetism is much the same. There's no energy in a magnet (well, hardly any) just a force. To create energy, you have to move a conductor in the magnet's field, this needs work to do so, and this work is then transferred into electrical energy. I have already posted calculations as to the intrinsic "energy" of a magnet, it's really, really, really tiny and is, in any case, unusable. A large magnet attached to a rope to the rafters will hold a very heavy lump of iron against the force of gravity (note, the force), pretty well indefinitely. But that's not energy or work, it's just a force. A table would hold exactly the same weight perfectly well, does it expend energy doing so? A Nissan Leaf uses permanent magnets in its motor. But the energy output from this motor does not come from the magnets, but from the battery that supplies the electricity to the motor. If the energy came from the magnets themsleves, you'd get about 1 watt of power for one second and a millimetre of movement. Then the motor would be dud and you'd have to re-magnetise the magnets. That's an obvious nonsense. The confusion about force and work and energy is pretty universal, and when magnetism is involved, which has this mysterious force which is hard to explain (it's almost magical) then the confusion worsens. Gyroscopes often feature in scientific confusion too. Even well known scientists can be guilty of this, Eric Laithwaite was a prime example. Totally brilliant man, linear induction motors etc, got his scientific briefs in a real twist when trying to explain the gyroscopic effect. But forget all the detail. Just recall these laws, they are immutable. Law 1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. Law 2 The entropy of any system can only ever increase Law 3 (less well known and not so applicable to everyday scientific reasoning) says that as the temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system remains constant. The law of conservation of momentum. In an isolated system, whatever momentum is changed by the collision of one object with another, then the total momentum after the collision is exactly the same as the total momentum prior to the collision. (This of course applies to any number of collisions, including for instance the incalculable number of molecular collisions in a collection of gas) This law is a direct consequence of Newton's Third Law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (for action or reaction, read force). All you have to do when considering claims like the "Perendev" motor or other similar devices, is to take note of these laws. If the motor or machine or device is disobeying these laws, and it's totally obvious that they are, then they're frauds, and there is no science or logic behind them. I do take your point about commenting in an educational or given and take way. That's a valuable attribute to keep keep in mind. It's easy to forget though! I thought I took some time in my first posting to provide quite a bit of scientific evidence to back my assertions, I didn't just launch into some rant, and I went to the trouble to provide some references for you to read. So I don't really accept the charge that I ignored the "educational" side of the argument. I did get frustrated because no-one seemed to take any notice from my effort, instead posting ever more preposterous "evidence". The problem is that I'm 72 years old, and it really does frustrate me that very simple science is so misunderstood and that fraudsters, quacks and cynical opportunists can still find so big a gullible audience out in the wider citizenry. I suppose I am getting too old to have to bother to explain simple scientific principles when all the information is out there for people to learn for themselves. (and especially when it's obvious you're being taken for a ride) But thanks for your reply, Cheers, John M
|
Message Thread: | This response ↓
- The Earth Engine - is this the dawn of civilisation? - fredjc June 17, 2019, 10:39 pm
- Re: The Earth Engine - is this the dawn of civilisation? - Dave F June 17, 2019, 11:30 pm
- Re: The Earth Engine - the dawn of civilisation? No, it's the dawn of the infinite credulity drive.. - John Monro June 17, 2019, 11:53 pm
- Re: The Earth Engine - is this the dawn of civilisation? - turtleman June 18, 2019, 3:17 am
- Oh, and . . . - turtleman June 18, 2019, 4:53 am
- Got any actual evidence about this machine, fred? The vids, etc. provided add up to nothing much, - Rhisiart Gwilym June 18, 2019, 10:31 am
|
|