What happens when the "illusion" of the famous Escher waterfall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_%28M._C._Escher%29
meets the "magnetic fountain effect" (for which there is some demonstrable proof) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7121/fig_tab/444832a_F1.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7121/full/444832a.html [Paywall protected] Can an arguable form of perpetual motion be far behind? Obviously, we do not need Escher's contrivance, other than for the PR value of a famous lithograph ... and/or since it is pretty hard to get a camera into a Dewar operating near zero K... but I can find no overwhelming argument against the proposition that a limited kind of perpetual motion is forbidden by a requirement for almost no heat. SIDE NOTE: does a demonstration of "perpetual motion" at near absolute zero really need to take into account the energy expenditure for cooling? There are logical arguments both ways. Would any demonstration of a putative violation of CoE (conservation of energy) open up the floodgates, so to speak?
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
