On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. A perpetual motion machine will never defeat the self-perpetuating argument that there are unaccounted sources of stored energy. Such machines are worthy of investigation if they produce more force than can be explained by the laws of motion. harry > 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. > >
