Saturday, September 15, 2007

A Defense of Perpetual Motion

Re-posted from my perpetual motion page:
Based on a critical source at: A Critic:

They take a machine ( A ) and a certain amount of energy ( B ) and expect that somehow the combination will give rise not merely to the machine itself ( a ) and a total of energy ( b ) equivalent in amount to what they put in ( B ). They expect not merely a and b; they will look for additional energy c. If they get it, they will get something out of nothing; they will get an effect without a cause behind it

This assumes that the machine is only a machine. In fact machine is already an accretion on the concept of matter. By the same logic a more primitive person might argue that matter with energy cannot be a machine, for it is already a combination of two things: matter (A) and energy (B), which cannot equal a machine (C).~1 Interestingly, this is a similar reasoning to the physicists of today. Also, he assumes that every perpetual motion machine has energy input. In fact the concept of over-unity assumes minimal input.

My tilt motor design (I think cleverly) requires no energy input aside from construction. It is a simple product of slope transferred by leverage, without loss of vertical height. Any energy output comes out of transferring mass on a slope into a difference in directed tilt. In this case I am tempted to claim that the assumption or even foundational proof that all energy must be inputed is a fallacy.

For example, consider a pair of airplanes. Each carries a considerable cargo,
but one is far more aerodynamic. The one that is aerodynamic takes less energy to carry the load a particular distance, and to a particular altitude. If we consider this apart from the energy required to lift the cargo, it turns out that there is a potential to drop a considerable weight that only exists when we have an aerodynamic plane.

Now consider theoretically that a machine’s functioning is like the difference between an aerodynamic plane and a plane that can hardly take off. One device can lift its bulk until it would have force if it landed, while the other doesn’t get high enough to have much of a result. In the first case there is some kind of output, if we ignore input. In the second case, there is no output, since not having gained altitude, the plane is still mostly inert matter.

Now let me draw an analogy that, since sealevel is in fact an altitude in terms of gravity, there is energy potential of the matter even when it is on the ground. It is as if, compared to a canyon, for example, the plane has already taken flight, in terms of the potential of its own mass. Thus, a theoretical machine may be treated as though it has similar properties.

For example, if the machine loses weight, this would be like dropping ballast. Note that losing ballast has nothing to do with how far the ballast falls. For example, a helium balloon with a rock weighing on the string will take off if the rock/ballast is moved, even if the rock remains at the same altitude. The energy the balloon might have has little to do with how much energy it took to detach it from the ground. Similarly, if leverage is applied to two weights, one attached to the other such that the leverage is sufficient only to lift one, if one weight is detached, the other may be lifted, independent of whether the detached weight loses altitude.

Note, however, that in the case of perpetual motion the goal is not to gain more height than is lost, or to lose or gain weight, but rather to gain energy with a consistent average of height and weight values. Let’s say that a theoretical device is a like a flying plane. If it drops ballast at its altitude, it may then gain energy (instead of altitude), whereupon it acquires its ballast once more (at no disproportionate cost since there is no loss of altitude), whereupon it drops its ballast once more at the same altitude, thereby gaining energy. The question becomes not whether this is possible, since my reasonable examples give evidence of this, but what specific means would allow it.

Unlike an airplane, the perpetual machine is not attempting to leave the ground; it doesn’t need a huge energy input in order to take off. Sealevel always has altitude in terms of gravity, the exception being if there is no ground to stand on (we wouldn’t expect a pencil to hover somewhere in the middle of a one-mile vertical shaft). Therefore it is reasonable to expect that even at sealevel, mass has potential energy, energy that may be lost by loss of altitude, but which remains constant given a constant—or constant average—altitude.

If the energy used in a perpetual motion design is partly created simply from mass, this might be compared to a plane that flies by dropping weight. In the case of the plane, losing weight certainly would assist flight. However, the perpetual motion machine is not attempting to fly, it is attempting to generate energy. Consequently—given an equivalent to aerodynamics, a kind of volitionism—we might equate the mass it has as energy, energy it does not need in order to take off, (since sealevel has altitude in terms of gravity). Hence mass might be utilized for a consistent effect, the sort sought after in perpetual motion design.

Extended Footnotes

1. An anticipated argument, that matter and energy are the same (and therefore it is redundant to say that it is both matter and energy, yet not redundant to say that it is energy and machine) is mostly valid on an atomic level. In fact, the machine is physically made out of something that is not energy input as we understand it technologically (e.g. electricity or a mechanical input).

The machine is already more than the sum of its parts, since the parts are not in and of themselves a machine. If any energy is inputed it can be proven that it is more than the sum of its parts: material parts (A) + mechanical relationships (B) + energy (C) is necessarily more than the sum of material parts and mechanical relationships.

According to this reasoning it is illogical to think that there is any machine that is NOT perpetual motion. Afterall, the machine could not have energy, for the same things must always result: matter and machine do not equal matter, machine, and energy! To say that even inputed energy could make matter and machine equal to matter, machine, and energy is also to say that the machine has energy. Yet to say that it has energy is also to say that matter and machine have energy.

According to the logic, however there is only energy insofar as machine and energy are the same thing. Otherwise there is no use in inputing energy, and no correspondence between them. To get full energy output, according to physics, is to have no resistance, no mechanics, i.e. no machine. In other words, in a physical model energy is not mechanical. Yet if energy is not mechanical, how is it possible to have mechanical effects? It begins to look unreasonable.

On the other hand, if energy is in fact mechanical, if a machine possesses energy by taking on a property of being energized, even if we allow that output may not ever equal input in a given (non perpetual) device, the energy 'used' (from input) in a mechanical sense is the only energy used to continue movements. Therefore, by this reasoning no mechanical device has output, since insofar as there is output, it has not moved.

energy input --> energy output = consistent/ balanced

used energy--> sustainable energy -->continued energy = unbalanced insofar as
there is mechanical energy

material parts--> energized parts --> material parts = balanced

passive mechanical relations --> active --> passive = balanced

No comments: