The Atmos Clock: Perpetual Motion Machine

reply to post by Mary Rose

Yes every device in existence that actually works like the atmos clock violates the laws of physics, and all the devices that have never actually worked like the Keely motor hoax follow the laws of physics exactly. Or do I have that backwards?

If a device violates the laws of physics as we know them, and actually works, then the device still isn't violating the true laws of physics. It may be illustrating our understanding of the laws of physics has a gap. However the physics behind the atmos clock is very well understood and there's no violation of the laws of physics as we understand them or otherwise.

Arbitrageur
Yes every device in existence that actually works like the atmos clock violates the laws of physics . . .

Arbitrageur
If a device violates the laws of physics as we know them, and actually works, then the device still isn't violating the true laws of physics.

You mean to say "isn't actually violating," correct?

So, which is it?

This?

Arbitrageur
Yes every device in existence that actually works like the atmos clock violates the laws of physics . . .

Or this?

Arbitrageur
However the physics behind the atmos clock is very well understood and there's no violation of the laws of physics as we understand them or otherwise.

Mary Rose

So, what's your stance on the clock?

It's a regular machine. Horribly expensive and rather over ornate for my tastes.

Mary Rose
Just for the record, I would like to note that proponents of the electric sun/electric universe theory disagree with that. Not to open a can of worms. (I hope. Unless the discussion can be civil and productive.)

"Electric Universe" is so full of holes it's nearly worse than reading Tom Bearden's stuff.

Before you said gravity is not energy, so are you making a distinction between gravity and gravitational potential, or are you saying that stored energy is not the same as an energy source?

Gravity is not energy. I said "you can store energy in gravitational potential". Seems clear enough. Gravitational potential energy is mgh. Pretty straightforward. If I pack energy into a rock by carrying it up a ladder, then I've traded chemical energy for gpe. And what I'll put in is mgh, and what I'll get out is mgh. There's no magic way to use that to make a working perpetuum mobile that runs from gravity, because you've got that symmetry. It's the same thing that keeps you from doing it with magnets or springs.

reply to post by Bedlam


Is this what you're talking about? From Yahoo Answers:

This is the formula for potential energy due to gravity.

E = m*g*h

or

E = mgh

m is the mass of the object
g is acceleration due to gravity (9.8 meters/sec^2)
h is the height of the object
E is the potential energy of the object from gravity.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Classic freshman physics. Gravitational potential energy is mgh. The issue for "free energy" out of this is, it's mgh putting energy in, and it's mgh taking it back out. So there's no asymmetry there.

You don't GET more on the way out. It's the same. Same thing with magnets, or springs, or compressed air, or whatnot along those lines.

reply to post by Bedlam


The thing that's confusing is the word "stored." Coal is stored energy from the sun. You said that energy can be stored in gravitational potential. Coal is energy but gravity is not.

From Peter Lindemann's Perpetual Motion Reality, presented at the 2012 Bedini-Lindemann Science and Technology Conference:

Mary Rose
reply to post by Bedlam

 

The thing that's confusing is the word "stored." Coal is stored energy from the sun. You said that energy can be stored in gravitational potential. Coal is energy but gravity is not.

If you go back far enough, it's ALL stored, with the exception of hydrogen fusion.

After the first part of the bang was over, you ended up with hydrogen, some residual EM, heat, and possibly energy in the vacuum and space expansion. The hydrogen made first gen stars, you got supernovae, and out of that you got heavier elements you could fission. But the energy in the heavy elements is technically stored from first gen stars blowing up.

But yes, coal has chemical energy. I wouldn't say it IS energy, but it's a source of stored energy. If I burn it, I get heat, and can use some of that in a heat engine to produce more useful forms of power, like electricity.

A rock at the top of a cliff has gravitational potential energy. If it falls down, it'll release mgh worth of energy on the way down in terms of work in various forms from heat to sound.

However, where that starts going woo is at this point - if I say that I have a furnace and boiler wherein the coal burns with air, produces heat and turns a turbine or drives a steam piston engine to produce power, well, that's pretty standard. That happens a lot. You woo-ify it by saying "...and it's a MAGIC furnace, that works by burning the coal, producing heat, then by means of coal-iant beams, the ashes and clinkers turn back INTO coal and burn AGAIN! You never have to add in more coal!" You probably wouldn't believe that for a minute. But if I say that about gravity and have lots of levers and beams and weights sliding back and forth, you MIGHT. Even though it's the same thing.

You can't unburn coal for a net energy gain in a burning it-unburning it cycle. But people have less issue believing I can lower that rock and raise it again to the same height and get a net gain. I'm not sure why, but they do.

Mary Rose
From Peter Lindemann's Perpetual Motion Reality, presented at the 2012 Bedini-Lindemann Science and Technology Conference:

That last point is where they're trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Yes, that's EXACTLY what they're doing. But if you obfuscate or scientize it enough, most people ask the wrong questions or ignore the problems.

I think the confusion comes from strict definitions that scientists use and the everyday practical experience people have like when a person lives in a consistently windy region and is always seeing the trees blow. That person will think of the wind as "perpetual motion" because it's windy so often. However, the scientists will correctly point out it's not perpetual motion because climate can change and it's all inevitably driven by the sun, but the everyday person will shrug and say something like "Well, it might not be perpetual, but it's as close as anything I've seen."

Kind of like if we made a clock driven by a nuclear battery that'd last a million years and some stone age people who lacked knowledge might think it'll go on forever because in all practical reality a million years is forever to them, notwithstanding they wouldn't understand the science behind it and so would think it's magic.

The closest thing I know of to perpetual motion is the rising and falling of the sun, but this is bearing in mind I'm not a scientist; just a layman. That being said, of the limited exposure I have to science I know that if an object in space is put into motion it will continue that motion until acted upon by some other object or force. Even though it's true an object will move forever if not acted upon, it's not actually doing work and even a single atom colliding with it will change its motion.

I do find it interesting though that anything moves at all. What makes things move? Does the universe remember where things are or do the things themselves? Does the rock hurdling through cosmic space know its speed or is the universe keeping track of it? What's telling the rock to keep moving on its current heading and speed?

Let me try to explain it better.... When you heat up a rock the kinetic energy inside increases. Another words, the rock records its temperature. But if you push a rock in a vacuum and it moves in response, does the rock record its movement and direction? What records its speed and direction? We can't measure a rock to get its speed and direction, can we? It seems we have to measure its position(s) and using time as a variable and trigonometry we can determine its speed and direction. So somehow its speed and direction are stored, but WHERE exactly?? What's telling those atoms in the rock to move at X speed and X direction? It has to be stored somewhere.

Mary Rose
So, which is it?

This?

Arbitrageur
Yes every device in existence that actually works like the atmos clock violates the laws of physics, and all the devices that have never actually worked like the Keely motor hoax follow the laws of physics exactly. Or do I have that backwards?

Mary Rose
or this?

Arbitrageur
However the physics behind the atmos clock is very well understood and there's no violation of the laws of physics as we understand them or otherwise.

Mary please. The first statement should have been obvious satire even without the two obvious clues I added to emphasize that's what it was, like the question "or do I have that backwards?" and the laughing smile face showing I was laughing at that ridiculous statement. How many clues do you need? I could have stopped there and most people would have understood the correct answer, but just to make sure I re-wrote the correct answer without any laughing smiley faces, just to make sure nobody could get the wrong idea, and yet, you still ask...are you serious?

Unfortunately however, this satirical view appears to be scarily close yo your actual world view, where you seem to think that all the devices that never actually work don't violate the laws of physics, like the Keely motor, the Rodin coil, the Bearden transformer...the list is long of devices that don't work that you apparently believe in. In the case of the Keely motor hoax, when he demonstrated the device, it was actually obeying the laws of physics perfectly, using secret tubes hidden in his laboratory connected to an air compressor which was supplying the energy. But when the source of his funding insisted he demonstrate his device without the tubes, he refused, because to do this his device would need to violate the laws of physics to continue to function. Of course Keely already knew it couldn't, so that's why he refused. At this point his funding was cut back dramatically because it was apparent to even his benefactor he was hoaxing.

If you could wrap your mind around the concepts in this post and the one you replied to...namely that the devices which actually work obey the true laws of physics, you would be a lot less subject to falling for hoaxer's scams. Then you would be asking like I do why the scammers never seem to have a working device, and always have a million and one excuses why they don't. Please think about it.

jonnywhite
The closest thing I know of to perpetual motion is the rising and falling of the sun, but this is bearing in mind I'm not a scientist; just a layman. That being said, of the limited exposure I have to science I know that if an object in space is put into motion it will continue that motion until acted upon by some other object or force. Even though it's true an object will move forever if not acted upon, it's not actually doing work and even a single atom colliding with it will change its motion.

The part where it becomes a perpetuum mobile by definition would be if I could take a planetary body and extract energy from that motion with no loss of the body's kinetic energy.

For example - the moon and Earth produce tidal deformation in each other. Over time, that's tidal locked the Moon, and causes ocean tides on the Earth. That takes energy. As such, the Earth spins slower and the Moon's orbit grows larger every year. The energy of the tides is being subtracted from the Earth-Moon system. In a "perpetual motion" scheme, that wouldn't happen. The energy would just come from nowhere forever.

That's why you don't count orbits and planetary spins as perpetual motion, it is a classic Newtonian system, the energy you take out ends up subtracted from the orbit or spin. It's not a magic source of new endless energy.

reply to post by Bedlam


Nice points.

Arbitrageur
The first statement should have been obvious satire . . .

Well, it wasn't obvious satire to me.

Bedlam
If you go back far enough, it's ALL stored, with the exception of hydrogen fusion.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with my point.

My point was your use of the term "stored" in one way for coal and another way for gravity. The word "potential" means energy sitting there waiting to be used, doesn't it? So, why isn't gravitational potential the same as coal? Yes, you use it once - any particular bit of gravitational potential, but you don't use the lump of coal more than once either. What's the difference?

But yes, coal has chemical energy. I wouldn't say it IS energy, but it's a source of stored energy.

So again, it’s potential until you use it, at which point it’s energy. Correct?

Bedlam
That last point is where they're trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Yes, that's EXACTLY what they're doing.

The last point:

It DOES NOT operate WITHOUT an energy source

Of course any machine does not operate without any energy source; the source is listed in the first point:

. . . the Natural Environment . . .

What's your point?

Mary Rose
My point was your use of the term "stored" in one way for coal and another way for gravity. The word "potential" means energy sitting there waiting to be used, doesn't it? So, why isn't gravitational potential the same as coal? Yes, you use it once - any particular bit of gravitational potential, but you don't use the lump of coal more than once either. What's the difference?

Most "overunity" devices rely on obfuscating the fact that they're reburning the coal, so to speak. The rather tiresome "gravity engine" thread is an example, as are all the "burning water for fuel" threads. And any magnet engine, or compressed air contraption.

The last point:

It DOES NOT operate WITHOUT an energy source

Of course any machine does not operate without any energy source; the source is listed in the first point:

. . . the Natural Environment . . .

What's your point?

You made it for me, I think. The guys you're citing are veteran coal re-burners.

Bedlam
Most "overunity" devices rely on obfuscating the fact that they're reburning the coal, so to speak.

Okay I see what you're saying, but there is such a thing as re-using energy, I believe. You can't reuse a lump of coal, but I'm gathering that clever use of design and techniques can re-use electricity, for example, in a device.

I don't believe anyone is trying to obfuscate anything. I think this is what cutting-edge research is all about.

Bedlam
You made it for me, I think. The guys you're citing are veteran coal re-burners.

So, your answer to me is to denigrate people such as Peter Lindemann?

Mary Rose
Okay I see what you're saying, but there is such a thing as re-using energy, I believe.

In a sense, yes. In another sense no.

My favorite reason for wanting to get a hybrid is that for as long as I've been driving, it has always bothered me to press the brakes to stop and then waste all that kinetic energy in heat dissipating from the brakes. Even before hybrids existed I thought it would be great to capture that kinetic energy in a re-usable form, instead of just turning it into heat. Hybrids can do just that, by charging the battery when you press on the brakes.

But this is a very specific example with very specific defined parameters which can be measured.

You can't reuse a lump of coal, but I'm gathering that clever use of design and techniques can re-use electricity, for example, in a device.

I don't believe anyone is trying to obfuscate anything. I think this is what cutting-edge research is all about.

The problem with saying you can "re-use electricity" is that it's a meaningless statement. You have to define exactly what you mean much more specifically than that, like I did with the car kinetic energy recovery for example.

In electrical systems the same electrons are used over and over again. In power transmission lines they just wiggle back and forth. If this is what you mean by "reusing electricity" then this has been part of fundamental electromagnetic theory for a long time. If you aren't talking about the electrons but are talking about specific measures of power or energy output per unit time, then those need to be specified to have any meaning. Saying "electricity can be re-used" just doesn't cut it...it's not right or wrong, it's meaningless gobbledy-gook without further definition in scientific or engineering terms and it sure could be used for obfuscation.

Here is a specific energy analysis showing how up to 98% of the energy from coal can be wasted to light up a light bulb:

www.nap.edu...

There are plenty of opportunities to reduce waste in such a system even without re-using anything. The lost energy isn't destroyed, most of it is lost as heat which we are unable to use. Just think if we can reduce the losses from 98% to 90%, then the useful electricity will increase by a factor of 5, without even re-using any of it. Switching to LED lights can help with that, since the 2% figure at the end is for incandescent lights.

If you could capture the heat coming from the incandescent bulb and use it to generate more electricity, then you could talk about the electricity that went into the bulb being re-used I guess, though I wouldn't phrase it like that. But I hear a lot of hand-waving arguments when people talk about "reusing electricity" with little substance. If they think they have something better then build it and demonstrate it and if it really is better it will sell itself, but let me guess, the only thing for sale are DVDs talking about how they will change the world but they don't have any useful product...yet?

Mary Rose

Okay I see what you're saying, but there is such a thing as re-using energy, I believe. You can't reuse a lump of coal, but I'm gathering that clever use of design and techniques can re-use electricity, for example, in a device.

I don't believe anyone is trying to obfuscate anything. I think this is what cutting-edge research is all about.

If by "re-using energy" you mean you get to expend it, then scoop it back up again and recharge the battery, that's un-burning the coal. No, you can't re-use electricity, at least not in the sense I think you mean it.

There are schemes in some situations where you can reclaim waste heat in a co-gen facility or whatnot, but you can't get your energy back once you've used it.

Got any specific examples of something you think 'reuses' electricity?

So, your answer to me is to denigrate people such as Peter Lindemann?

Yes, because he's one of the guys you ought not be listening to, at least not if you want something that corresponds to reality. Nor Bearden, Bedini, Sterling etc.

Bedlam
Got any specific examples of something you think 'reuses' electricity?

I was referring to the work of Paul Babcock.

Bedlam
Yes, because he's one of the guys you ought not be listening to, at least not if you want something that corresponds to reality. Nor Bearden, Bedini, Sterling etc.

You are dead wrong.