At 09:24 pm 21/06/2006 -0400, Stephen wrote: > > >Patrick Vessey wrote:
[<snip> covered previously] >> OK, I picked a poor msg to illustrate my point. Try this one: >> >> >> ---quote--- >> >[snip] >> Have you even seen my motor? Because your questions make no sense. >> There is no flywheel at all. >> What the hell is wrong with you. >> I will start with one charged cap 25V 5000uF that's all! The device will >> constantly produce far more than what the cap can store. We will light a 4 >> watt bulb for hours and hours. NO FLYWHEEL on earth that is started >> using that cap could produce 4 watts. Hell if you want we will use a >> drained cap and start EMILIE by hand to charge the cap. Then it will keep >> running on it's own producing 4 watts or more! >> >> Do you understand! >> >Yup, I understand. Either he's lying or it's the most revolutionary >thing anyone's ever seen, and it will set _everything_ on its head -- or >get him murdered, if the wrong people start to believe him too soon. There is another alternative, Stephen. He could just be making an honest mistake. There wouldn't be a lot of point in murdering him. Too many people know about it. Anyway, in principle, it's no different from the Finsrud machine and that has been around for yonks. >If anything, I'm _understating_ the significance of his claim. > >Why's the capacitor there at all, I wonder? It couldn't light a 4 watt >bulb for 10 seconds, let alone "hours and hours" (however long that may >actually be -- once again, it seems like there's a hint that something >runs down after a while, which continues to seem odd to me: why is it >"hours and hours" and not "indefinitely" or "forever"?). > >And if he's really got a working perpetual motion machine of the first >kind, why's he wasting his time arguing about it on the internet? >Surely there's some better way to apply it? If it works, it's no more a "perpetual motion machine of the first kind" than is a Crookes radiometer. It's just drawing its energy from a different scale of motion and is not different in essence from a windmill or water mill. >And why does he write in the future tense rather than the past tense? >Not a precise statement like "We have lit a 4 watt bulb for 17 hours" >but "We _will_ light a 4 watt bulb for hours and hours". Not "We have >started with a drained cap" but rather "We _will_ _use_ a drained >cap..." Very odd phrasing. Future tense, in English, at least, usually >means it hasn't been done yet, and may be used as an alternative to the >subjunctive, meaning it's a contrary-to-fact situation .... or it could >just be sloppy phrasing on his part, I suppose. I'm afraid you might have put your finger on it there. I asked the same question - though not at such length. ;-) > Oh, well, whatever -- I'm just a pathological > skeptic when it comes to perpetual motion of > the first kind so I should recuse myself from all > future discussions of the Sprain motor. Trouble is, Stephen, that you refuse to see a magnet as the equivalent of a small turbine at the bottom of a deep ocean. Education had prevented you from seeing flux as flow. People who have not been exposed to scientific dogma can see things scientists can't - like stones falling from the sky. If a member of the French scientific establishment had seen that a century or two ago, he would have dismissed it as an alcoholic induced hallucination. 8-) Thermodynamics recognises that: "There are no truly reversible processes in practice." [http://www.taftan.com/thermodynamics/REVERSIB.HTM] The $64,000 question is, does the Sprain Cycle consume more energy than it generates, or does it generate more energy than it consumes? Evidence from the Finsrud machine suggests that the latter is entirely possible. Let's hope it proves to be so. Cheers, Frank Grimer
