Jones Beene wrote: > Stephen Lawrence writes, > >> AFAIK that doesn't violate anything else in the three laws -- only the > footnote is violated.... Note, however, that it certainly *does* violate > conservation of energy.... But conservation of energy is also *not* an > assumption of Newtonian mechanics; it's a theorem.
It's a theorem which depends for its proof on all three of the laws -- including the *strong* form of the third law. If you weaken the third law to allow violations of angular momentum conservation, then COE is no longer "provable" in the context of Newtonian mechanics, as the "pinwheel device" shows. That was the point I was trying to make there. > Yes but once again, Stephen - it should be mentioned (& since you are a > self-described nit-picker deluxe, you should not complain too > vociferously) that the 800 pound gorilla in the closet... > > ... the one which is always stinking up the place when so-called > "conservation of energy" is invoked in this kind of discussion - is zero > point energy. > > Either ZPE is a source of energy or it is not. ZPE isn't all that much of an issue with COE. (And, by the way, ZPE doesn't come up in any discussion of Newtonian mechanics, period, and that was the context of my comments on angular momentum.) If ZPE is a source of energy, then it can be tapped. If it's not then it can't. Obviously. If it can be tapped then, assuming you can measure the rate of "tapping", then you can account for it, and there's no issue with conservation of energy; the books still balance. If you can't measure the rate at which you receive energy from the ZPE field, and you can't predict anything about that rate, and you can't determine whether you actually did receive energy from the ZPE field, then indeed, COE is out the window. But so's everything else in that case; all bets are off and we can't predict or explain anything. As Heinlein once said, if you can't measure it, it's not science. (Door into Summer, words placed in the mouth of the scientist who discovered time travel.) Indeed, strictly speaking, COE only applies to closed systems. In a system with an external energy source, the total energy of the system is not conserved; rather, it increases at the rate at which energy is being added to the system. Again, the existence of ZPE doesn't change that; as an external energy source, it must be accounted for to get a "correct" answer. AFAIK tapping the ZPE field of Dirac et al involves making use of particles which appear spontaneously, or it involves making use of subtle effects like the Casimir effect which are caused by the unseen presence of the Dirac sea. Magmos, SMOT, and related perpetual motion machines are not typically set up to tap the ZPE field, or at least I've never seen any sensible argument to that effect. Rather, they're set up to tap (real or imagined) non-conservative behavior in permanent magnets. Just saying "There's Zero Point Energy <out there somewhere>!" is not sufficient to explain away all (real or imagined) violations of COE. That requires coming up with a way of coupling the ZPE into the device in question. If a particular OU device with no known energy source apparently doesn't tap the ZPE in any way, then it's still reasonable to argue that it violates COE and is therefore unlikely to work as claimed. > > If it is a source of energy, then so-called "conservation of energy" > cannot be violated, unless ZPE is exhausted. Nonsense. COE is violated if a device doesn't tap the ZPE field and yet shows increasing energy. Magmos and SMOT are, once again, examples. > > Which - according to some very erudite sources - is pretty darn hard to > do .... > > Jones > > > To wit: no less an authority than John Archibald Wheeler (who died > earlier this year) promoted something along the lines of: > > ZPE pervades our universe and is omni-directional within it. The energy > density of the ZPE is much higher than nuclear energy (seventy orders of > magnitude greater). For most purposes, the amount of energy in ZPE is > infinite, but the amount which is useful to us in 3-space is surely much > less. > > While the ZPE is electromagnetic in nature, quantum theory suggests that > it does not arise from electromagnetic propagation in our 3-space but > arises from what can be described as an orthogonal flux from a higher > spatial dimension. Many of us like to merge Wheeler with another great > mind - Dirac - and suggest that the spatial dimension where ZPE resides > be called "reciprocal space" and/or the so-called "epo field". > > As to whether ZPE can be easily "tapped" or not, that is another > question which should not diminish the basic "meaninglessness" of > invoking so-called "conservation of energy" If you think "conservation of energy" is "meaningless" then you have implicitly dismissed all attempts by physicists to explain the observed behavior of the world we live in. And that includes Hagelstein, Mills, and any other serious theorist you care to mention. Arguing that COE is meaningless because there's a ZPE field is much like saying, "Relativity says mass isn't constant, so Newtonian mechanics is totally wrong and worthless". COE is valid and valuable within its domain of applicability. > .. which is the most common ploy of skeptics of almost anything which > is of interest on this forum. I disagree. LENR certainly doesn't violate COE, and even Bob Park doesn't claim it does. Neither does anything Mills claims: Hydrinos play by the rules, too. Certainly, on the other hand, COE arguments by "skeptics" apply to SMOT, they apply to Newman's motor, they apply to electric cars which seem to recharge their batteries as the are driven (who was it that had one of those, anyway? Forget the name). And they apply to Ron Stiffler's devices. However, I think many would argue that this latter list does not encompass "almost anything of interest" on this forum. COE arguments are useful in wind farm design, they are useful in solar panel design, and they apply to capacitor design, just to name three areas where "alternative energy" designers are most certainly making use of the energy conservation law in their work.
