anonymousj

Clutch,

You said I said You responded by saying, among other things Now, your last remark can be interpreted as saying that you have already answered my question about the instance of (p & ~p), but I cannot find an answer to the question in the posts you have made since I entered the discussion. Will you, or someone who is following this thread (if there is anyone else), tell me-- 'Yes!' or 'No!'- if you have answered this question, and if you have, tell me what the answer is!

New tack-

You said Let us call this "Clutch's claim C".

Question 1. Is Clutch's claim C an empirical claim?

Question 2. Is there evidence that you think supports Clutch's claim C?

Question 3. Echoing part of your remark what is the evidence that you think supports Clutch's claim C?

anonymousj

Hawkingfan

Even if that theory were true, it would not be considered a PMM since by its definition is not "something that is in perpetual motion" but is rather "any putative device that violates the First Law of Thermodynamics or the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
We say 'putative' because no device, invention, or scheme has ever been shown to violate these laws."
The expanse and contraction of the universe does not violate either law and is therefore not a PMM. To refresh your memory on the 1st LoT: "The energy of an isolated system is constant." dU=dq+dw (The change in energy=heat change+work done on system)
And the second law: "The entropy of an isolated system increases in the course of a spontaneous change. No process is possible which the sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and its complete conversion into work."

John Page

PMM by definition does not require energy to be "created", energy may be inherent within the system. If there is nothing to suck energy out of the universe, the universe in motion can be compared to Zeno's arrow which in motion has kinetic energy (and is therefore non-identical with the arrow Zeno observed at its starting point art rest).

Cheers, John

Hawkingfan

PMM's are machines that do not operate from potential or kinetic energy, period. They use other means, supposedly.

John Page

Your statement would seem to stem from the consequence of 2LT that in a closed system, a physical process consumes energy. However, I don't think this has been tested on the universe to which 1LT "The amount of energy in a system always remains constant." might also be applied.

Cheers, John

Mr. Sammi

OK John Page, 1 possible point for you, You can collect all points after the big crunch.


Sammi Na Boodie ()

Hawkingfan

John,

I don't know if you are a skeptic or not. But if you are, then you must know about The Amazing Randi (James Randi). Here is what he has to say about PMMs (taken from his encyclopedia at his site www.randi.org and more specifically at http://jref.sawco.com
"This is a pervasive notion that has probably cost more time, money and mental effort to the crackpots than any other pursuit except for the philosophers stone.

The idea that a device, machine or engine can be designed whereby free energy or work can be obtained simply by setting it into motion, has preoccupied inventors for centuries. While "free'' power is available through solar radiation, ocean tides, changes in atmospheric pressure, flowing water, etc., no device can be constructed that will operate without energy input or that will generate an energy output greater than the energy required to operate it.

In 1678, the Abbé John of Hautefeuille (1647-1724) designed a machine that would perform continually as a result of the energy provided by warping pine boards subjected to natural changes in humidity, and in 1751 a St. Petersburg inventor named Kratzenstein came up with a thermal energy scheme. These, of course, did not come under the definition of perpetual motion machines since they depended upon a natural energy source, in the same way that solar cells, hydroelectric and various wave- and tidal-change systems do. Similarly, several kinds of timepieces such as the Atmos clock perform continually, powered by changes in barometric pressure.

By far the larger proportion of inventors of such devices are self-deluded. The rest are intentional frauds. Somewhere in between are those who sincerely believe that their ideas are workable, but are not averse to improving the performance of their creations by means of a little hidden support.

One of the most famous--and successful--of the fraudulent class of inventors was John Worrell Keely (1837-1898), a Boston man of no appreciable education who managed to raise vast amounts of money from investors who witnessed, at Keely's home, a model of his machine--the Hydro-Pneumatic-Pulsating-Vacuo-Engine--merrily whirring away without an apparent source of energy. Though he spent a short time in prison, he died wealthy and only after his house was torn down was it discovered that a flywheel in the basement connected to concealed tubes in the floors and walls had delivered compressed air to power this and several other models of marvelous machines he had designed.

The US Patent Office, much to its shame, has actually issued patents on perpetual motion devices and systems, though these "inventions'' have never been shown to work. This, in spite of a decision years ago that no patent for such a device would be considered unless a working model was submitted. Recently, a Mississippi man named Joe W. Newman actually obtained signatures from 30 scientists who said his "free energy'' machine, which is in actuality a huge direct-current motor powered by a massive stack of batteries, is a valid invention. Newman himself says that when his creation is finally able to be put to work,

There will be no more pollution, no more Ethiopias. Deserts will become oases. People will work only one hour a week and have all the material goods they need. Children will have hope. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that my machine is going to bring peace, prosperity and happiness.

Newman, who holds other valid patents for ideas that really do work--one is a cigarette-making machine, thus showing another of his contributions to mankind--refuses to accept the "perpetual motion'' label for his design, insisting that it is a "free energy'' idea. However, if the output of his machine is simply connected to the input, he should have an ever-running system. This he has apparently never managed--or tried--to do.

Perpetual motion/free energy remains a vain notion in the minds of eccentric folks who are intent upon wasting their time and other people's money on a dream. As Arthur Ord-Hume, in his fascinating book, Perpetual Motion--the History of an Obsession, says,

There must be something in the make-up of the perpetual motionist which, while urging him on in his quest for the impossible, encourages him not to deviate from the well-trodden path to certain failure. . . . Even the alchemist . . . knew when he was beaten."
If you disagree with this, then email him and tell him. But I'll warn you, he is very smart and will probably tear you to shreds.

Mr. Sammi

Well I guess, I am a certified crcckpot. I was occupied with my PPM between 1989 & 1990 after unsuccessfully trying to to find one since the first time of heard of it in early physics classes.

When I tested my apparatus, I thought I had a primary reading, but I was too excited to continue. Taking the idea to my old Physics professor in university, he showed me the true concept and said it could not work. I was giving hinm half of the design. The primary concept is based on natural phenomena, but with a bit of jigging I still think I MAY be able to defy gravity have a free up-ride.

NOW I am waiting for large sums of money to fuse the proper apparatus together, which seems to be expensive...

Yes the ouptut will go into the input but I will be using natural phenomena. I still have faith the complete and whole idea may have a chance to provide cheap energy.

If any investors are interested, you know the story...


Sammi Na Boodie (certified nut)

John Page

Well, I sometimes even doubt that I am a skeptic . So, this guy would subscribe to the theory that the universe is a non-PPM that is slowly winding down - I must look at his web site so thanks for the link.

Cheers, John