The Atmos Clock: Perpetual Motion Machine

Mary Rose
But the issue here has been the fact that the clock draws on the environment, no? As in accusations of dictionary abuse?

There are two reasons it's not a good example of a perpetual motion machine. It's not perpetual and it draws on the environment. How many reasons do you need? Again I think you need to take the post in context, since I addressed the environmental source also:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The atmos clock seems to give us something for nothing. Likewise we can get "free" energy from waves and tides, from wind, solar power, etc, but the sun is the ultimate source for most of that, except perhaps tidal power which comes from gravitational/rotational inertia, so that's a bit risky if we overdo that source and slow down the Earth's rotation.

A non-naive interpretation recognizes the quotes around "free" in the term "free energy" are my attempt to avoid dictionary abuse, by indicating it's not really free, and not really free energy. And by saying "seems to" give us something for nothing the obvious implication is, it really doesn't (At least it was supposed to be obvious, especially if you read the whole post in context, but maybe it wasn't to some people).

By mentioning the sun is the power source for that clock and the other technologies I listed except tidal power, I was trying to clarify there is nothing really more special about the clock than wind, waves, or solar panels since they all draw energy from the sun, which is the environmental source, right?

Arbitrageur
There are two reasons it's not a good example of a perpetual motion machine.

Okay.

To be clear: The fact is, the clock is a perpetual motion machine. It's just not a good example of a perpetual motion machine, according to you.

Arbitrageur
A non-naive interpretation recognizes the quotes around "free" in the term "free energy" are my attempt to avoid dictionary abuse, by indicating it's not really free, and not really free energy.

I see what you're saying. I agree that your use of quotation marks was a tool for avoiding dictionary abuse. And I agree that everyone understanding what the context of words is is very important. We need to all be on the same page.

Here is what I don't understand. Why is there an objection to the term "free energy" when the context of the term is that free means no substance traditionally used as fuel is required to run the device?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Textbecause the definition involves more than that).

Yes it does involve more....In the universe everything is in a state of perpetual motion, in its true literal sense.

However here on Earth with our atmosphere and gravity to overcome, the term perpetual motion cannot be used, because for perpetual motion to exist here on Earth it would need to provide an "over-unity" to exist.

So who misuses the term ?

Oh, and another thing for the "flat earthers" to try and explain, is the speed of the expanding universe !

Not only is it expanding but it is expanding at an ever increasing rate !.......So please tell us WHERE that extra energy is coming from ?????





SOURCE

Mary Rose


The term is useless for anyone seeking to describe devices which tap the environment. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, the term would be useless, because it doesn't describe the type of device you are interested in.

Nobody here is against your desire to tap cheap energy. The wording, which you seem to think is some sort of agenda, is simply "technical wording" of sorts.

You see "free energy" you think "energy I get for free, I don't pay a bill, replace batteries, etc" A person knowledgeable in the subject would see "free energy" and think of energy without a source.

You see "energy" and think of house electricity. The more knowledgeable would realize energy comes in many many different forms and any sort of heat, light, motion, etc is energy.

I'm using "you" in the general sense here not referring to you specifically.

If you tapped zero point energy, that would be awesome, but that wouldn't be perpetual motion. I don't know why you want to badly to attach that wording to such concepts, as it isn't needed any only distracts from the point.

Tap zero point energy somehow, you'll be the most famous person ever, but not for inventing perpetual motion. Energy exists all around us in different forms, and figuring out different ways of extracting that energy has been a goal for a long time. But in all those cases you are extracting energy, not creating it, which is what a perpetual motion machine would be doing.

Just because I'm curious, and feel free not to answer, but why do you want to attach the phrase "perpetual motion" to concepts such as cheap/clean energy? Nuclear power is the closest we have come to "free" energy, as you put in very little energy, and get a ton out. But that energy you get out already existed, you are just being clever in extracting it.

Mary Rose


Here is what I don't understand. Why is there an objection to the term "free energy" when the context of the term is that free means no substance traditionally used as fuel is required to run the device?

Well, I think people are able to use "free energy" in a pop-culture type of way, but not in a technical, scientific setting. It's not "free" by any technical definition, therefore it's not free energy.

If you want to discuss technology, it's best to get used to and inform oneself on the language common with that technology.

Think of it in medical terms. Are you going to go around calling the index finger the "gold digger finger" when discussing medical technology? No. Not if it's a serious discussion of the subject.

I guess to avoid putting to fine a point on it, "free energy" is kind of a slang word if you will. And a slang-word that's quite misleading on what it's words would imply. That's why it's not a good term to use when having serious discussion of technological issues such as energy production.

Asking why "free energy" isn't an acceptable term is like asking "why can't I call an engine block a pikachu" Well, for one it's not a pikachu, and second that's not the accepted term for the object/concept/idea being discussed. There's really nothing more than that.

I guess you question is really more of a question on the basis of language than it is with anything tech related.

James1982
You see "free energy" you think "energy I get for free, I don't pay a bill, replace batteries, etc" A person knowledgeable in the subject would see "free energy" and think of energy without a source.

Well, a person knowledgeable in the subject, I presume, is a mainstream-educated scientist? There are other people who are knowledgeable. And I believe plenty of knowledgeable people use the term as I've described, including the inventors working hard to make a free energy device work.

James1982
If you tapped zero point energy, that would be awesome, but that wouldn't be perpetual motion. I don't know why you want to badly to attach that wording to such concepts, as it isn't needed any only distracts from the point.

The reason the term perpetual motion machine is important is within the context of the severe beating (metaphor) people in the alternative science and technology community take from mainstream advocates on the subject of things like the Atmos clock.

BTW, I've seen people also beat people up for saying that we should tap zero-point energy, saying it's the lowest, ground state of a system so what's this talk about infinite energy? Or, something like that.

James1982
Energy exists all around us in different forms, and figuring out different ways of extracting that energy has been a goal for a long time.

Converting the zero-point energy to usable power with an intelligently designed device that is in harmony with nature and produces no pollution, is referred to on Sterling Allan's website as "exotic free energy." I'm not against other alternative energy sources but I have a personal fascination with exotic free energy because it seems the smartest to me.

James1982
But that energy you get out already existed, you are just being clever in extracting it.

People who use the term "perpetual motion machine" to describe the Atmos clock do not believe the clock created the energy.

ken10
Yes it does involve more....In the universe everything is in a state of perpetual motion, in its true literal sense.

In some cases nearly so, but not quite. For example in 5 billion years, the outer edge of the sun will be 93 million miles from where it is now. And guess how far the Earth is from the sun now? About 93 million miles. Certainly the orbits of Mercury and Venus are not perpetual, as they will likely no longer exist in 5 billion years, at which time the remnants of them will be inside the sun.

The rotating motion of planets is slowed by various forces, tidal interactions with moons, friction from atmospheres, etc. So it's close to perpetual in some low friction cases, but it's still not perpetual motion.

Perpetual motion

Once spun up, objects in the vacuum of space—stars, black holes, planets, moons, spin-stabilized satellites, etc.—continue spinning almost indefinitely with no further energy input. Tides on Earth are dissipating the gravitational energy of the Moon/Earth system at an average rate of about 3.75 terawatts.

even if the Earth survives the sun's expansion, it will continue to slow down its rotation from the 8 hour days Earth used to have, to longer than 24 hour days in the future. Humans could even accelerate the rate at which the Earth's rotation slows down if we extract enough tidal energy.

Friction is low in space but not zero, so you can say it's near perpetual motion in some cases (with less friction than the Earth), but still not quite perpetual. Even the most vacuum-like regions known to exist still have atoms in them and therefore will cause things to slow down, though not very much. They are referred to as "low friction" cases. But to be perpetual, the friction needs to be not low, but zero.

There is one case I know of where the friction is actually zero, to the best of our ability to measure so far, which is superconductivity. So that may be one real "perpetual" "motion", unless future more accurate measurements find some resistance to motion that we have so far been unable to measure.

In any case, neither the near perpetual motion of heavenly bodies, nor the perhaps actual perpetual motion of superconductivity can be used to construct perpetual motion machines (the topic of this thread), because as soon as you try to extract energy from their motion, you're slowing them down, making them not perpetual (just like we slow the Earth's rotation down a little when we extract tidal energy).

reply to post by Arbitrageur


All well and good, until you realise this....Even if all the heavenly bodies crashed into each other to form one super mass, because the universe is expanding with no observable entropy, that will mean, that mass will be forever moving with no other forces to effect it.

Game set and match.

GetHyped
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

The clock in your OP is powered by atmospheric pressure, not zero point energy.

You're suggesting that if the clock were powered by zero point energy, it would be a perpetual motion machine?

And if so, why the distinction?

Mary Rose

GetHyped
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

The clock in your OP is powered by atmospheric pressure, not zero point energy.

You're suggesting that if the clock were powered by zero point energy, it would be a perpetual motion machine?

And if so, why the distinction?

In the case of the clock, the energy is coming into the system from the Sun. The Sun is causing day/night and seasonal cycles, which drive weather patterns, which drive the clock. That energy comes from fusion in the Sun.

If you COULD extract ZPE, which is probably not going to happen (see the same proofs for Johnson noise rectifiers under "Feynman's Ratchet", it's a classic physics issue), then you'd be getting energy from THAT source. It still wouldn't be a perpetual motion machine, but the source in that case probably isn't going to happen.

If you were running the thing from magnets, springs, or orgone, then it's a perpetual motion machine.

Bedlam
If you were running the thing from magnets, springs, or orgone, then it's a perpetual motion machine.

The distinction is that the magnets, springs, or orgone would all be located inside the clock and the energy would simply be recycled indefinitely?

Mary Rose

Bedlam
If you were running the thing from magnets, springs, or orgone, then it's a perpetual motion machine.

The distinction is that the magnets, springs, or orgone would all be located inside the clock and the energy would simply be recycled indefinitely?

They're not sources of energy. I'll give you a "possible: unknown" on ZPE, although I still think any attempt to get net work out of ZPE is going to fall afoul of Feynman's Ratchet.

reply to post by Bedlam


If they are not sources of energy, what were you saying then? How in the world would they produce the perpetual motion?

Are you making a distinction between power and energy?

Mary Rose
reply to post by Bedlam

 

If they are not sources of energy, what were you saying then? How in the world would they produce the perpetual motion?

Are you making a distinction between power and energy?

edit on 11/16/13 by Mary Rose because: Add

No, I'm saying some things are obviously a source of energy (fusion->weather->clock), others MAY be but I doubt it (ZPE) and others are never a source or don't exist. (magnets, springs, electric fields, gravity, orgone)

reply to post by Bedlam


Off the top of your head, could you please list the other sources of energy besides fusion.

ken10
All well and good, until you realise this....Even if all the heavenly bodies crashed into each other to form one super mass, because the universe is expanding with no observable entropy, that will mean, that mass will be forever moving with no other forces to effect it.

Game set and match.

Please learn the difference between the metric expansion of space, and motion through space.

You seem to think they are the same thing, but they are not.

The fact that they are not the same thing is the reason why a distant galaxy can recede from us faster than the speed of light, because it's not moving through space. If it was moving through space it couldn't travel faster than the speed of light.

Because this expansion is caused by changes in the distance-defining metric, and not by objects themselves moving in space, this expansion (and the resultant movement apart of objects) is not restricted by the speed of light upper bound of special relativity.

As for the "game set and match", I'm not playing a game, I'm stating scientific observations, and your claim about motion due the expansion of the universe is based on a serious but somewhat common misunderstanding on your part, so you don't even seem to be in the "game" you want to play.

Arbitrageur
The fact that they are not the same thing is the reason why a distant galaxy can recede from us faster than the speed of light, because it's not moving through space.

If it's not moving through space, what is it moving through?

Mary Rose
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Off the top of your head, could you please list the other sources of energy besides fusion.

Oh, goodness, where would you start?

A lot of what's on the planet comes down to it, though. Any wind, water, hydro, coal, alcohol, gasoline sort of thing is stored fusion energy from sunlight.

Nuclear energy's different, of course, fission or fusion can yield energy. You can store energy in kinetic energy or gravitational potential. There's some chemical energy around in space that didn't come from the sun.

But pretty much, if you go back to the Bang, what you've got is either some sort of kinetic or EM energy from the bang, or fusion energy from hydrogen, ab initio. Every heavier element came from first gen stars, so even energy from heavy element fission is stored fusion energy from supernovae.