Conservation of energy is a strong theory, so widely confirmed that
questioning it must occur at the fringes, i.e., energy is not
necessarily conserved locally under quantum conditions, but these
variations average out so that it remains conserved at the macroscopic level.
Absent evidence otherwise, a magnet motor is macroscopic.
What we then assume is that, while there is conversion back and forth
between potential energy and kinetic energy, the sum of potential
energies involved and kinetic energies involved, in a closed system,
is constant.
There is no "eventually." This is so at every moment (again,
neglecting quantum fluctuations). If "energy" is "required" to "place
the magnets in their positions," that energy, which was kinetic, is
stored as potential energy. This potential energy returns as kinetic
when the magnets move the motor.
If the motor goes through a cycle, energy can oscillate between
potential and kinetic, but there is no energy gain at any point. If
there appears to be, long experience indicates that there is some
hidden potential energy being converted to kinetic. For example,
there is potential energy stored in a "permanent" magnet, in the magnetisation.
If that potential energy is converted to kinetic energy -- which
seems theoretically possible --, then a system might accelerate for a time.
The magnets, however, will lose their magnetization and the motor
will run down.
The idea that perpetual motion is impossible is misleading. A
"machine" can be made which will move indefinitely. But it will not
accelerate indefinitely. It will not do work indefinitely, this is
limited by the stored potential energy.
We know of one exception to the conservation of energy, which
involves the interchangeability of mass and energy. So the ultimate
principle is conservation of mass/energy. However, mass conversion is
very much out of the ordinary, and is highly unlikely in a "magnet motor."
Frankly, if someone said to me, "Hey, someone is outside
demonstrating a perpetual motion machine," I might not walk out the
door. Depends on what I was doing and how much I wanted to know what
the kooks in my neighborhood are up to.
Technically, anything is possible, but some things are so unlikely
that it's not worth the effort investigating isolated reports.
Now, actually demonstrate a machine, and if it is independently
verified (not "demonstrated"), the whole thing would shift.
Cold fusion was considered impossible, and the U.S.P.T.O. so much
bought those arguments that it classified cold fusion devices in with
perpetual motion machines. That was a clear error, because there was
no such principle of impossibility, so fundamentally established.
There was merely a lack of knowledge of exceptions to the general
rule. The existence of exceptions would not overturn physics, as
pretended. A specific theory, proven by controlled experiment, might.
But that doesn't exist, beyond the simple theory that the
Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect is a result of the conversion of
deuterium to helium and heat. That does not give the mechanism, and
it is only the mechanism that *might* overturn some established
theories. More likely, not.
There was, in fact, a known exception to the idea that cold fusion
was impossible, muon-catalyzed fusion. Accepted. Impractical to use
for power generation, it appears. That could actually change, if
someone figures out how to solve the alpha-sticking problem.
It was *somewhat* reasonable for physicists to reject cold fusion,
initially. Where this entered the realm of pseudoskepticism and
pseudoscience was when multiple independent confirmations were
rejected "for lack of an explanatory theory." I.e., they are not
going to look at evidence that their ignorance is ignorance. Cargo
cult science.
That pseudoskeptical view has almost completely disappeared from the
scientific journals. Storms "Review of cold fusion (2010)" is, at
this point, the definitive review, published in a mainstream
multidisciplinary journal, Naturwissenschaften, established 1913, and
now published by the second-largest scientific publiser in the world,
Springer-Verlag. There are actually about 16 reviews of cold fusion
or cold fusion subtopics in mainstream journals, published since
2005. All accept cold fusion as real.
The last gasp of the pseudoskeptical position appeared as a letter in
the Journal of Environmental Monitoring, objecting to a cold fusion
review there, raising a host of arguments that veered into total
silliness, stomped on by a reply signed by many scientists, with the
editors of JEM refusing further response. Turnabout is not fair play,
but it might be justice. Shanahan is now on the outside looking in,
an isolated crank. Over his long anti-cold-fusion career, going back
to the 1990s, he felt totally free to make up whatever "alternative
hypotheses" he wanted, and one even became notable, his Calibration
Constant Shift theory (which is certainly worth looking at *with
certain kinds of calorimetry*, but which remains preposterous as an
explanation of the totality of cold fusion calorimetry). At various
points, Shanahan actually acknowledged that there was some new
phenomenon taking place, but clung ferociously to the proposition
that it was chemical, not nuclear.
My point: had the physicists been practicing real science, instead of
relying on "they must -- all -- be making "some mistake" --
unspecified, they would have done controlled experiment to identify
the artifact. That was almost never done. Lewis found that a failure
to stir produced apparent excess heat, which it can. However, it was
never shown that this applied to specific results from Pons and
Fleischmann, and, in context, it certainly did not, and it would not
have applied to the flow calorimetry of McKubre et al.
The pseudoskeptics often pointed to N-rays and polywater as prior
examples of "pathological science." Yet those were "debunked" by
controlled experiment that conclusively demonstrated that the
apparent results were artifact, by actually identifying the artifact.
The physicists got lazy, and it may not have been inconsequential
that this laziness had the effect of supporting the whole hot fusion
boondoggle. Now, that was "real science." Cold fusion was just a
fantasy, wasn't that proven in 1989?
No, it wasn't. P&F's neutron results were artifact, a quite
unfortunate fact, because they vastily confused the issues. If not
for those results, there was no direct evidence for "nuclear" in the
early findings of P&F. There was only the heat.
It's truly unfortunate that the heat/helium ratio was not found until
later. P&F did report helium, but where themselves confused about it,
since they believed that the reaction was taking place in the bulk.
They had not wanted to announce yet, but were forced by University of
Utah for reasons of establishing intellectual property. Had they
waited until they knew that the ash was helium, until they had done
the work to establish the critical ratio of heat to helium, there
would then have been specifically verifiable evidence, and
experiments that found no excess heat and no excess helium would have
been simply confirmations, just not very interesting ones.
But it didn't happen that way.
At 12:21 PM 9/4/2012, Harry Veeder wrote:
Assuming no hidden power sources, the assumption is the work done
repeatedly lifting the magnets (and the rod at the side) will
eventually exceed the energy required to place the magnets in their
starting position.
Harry
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:31 AM, Teslaalset
<[email protected]> wrote:
> This stuff is quite misleading.
> One has to put energy in first to get the moving magnet into its starting
> position.
> So there is no energy gain.
