P. 1
(article) - energy - tom bearden - perpetual working machines creating energy from nothing

(article) - energy - tom bearden - perpetual working machines creating energy from nothing

|Views: 342|Likes:
Published by biosbg

More info:

Published by: biosbg on Jan 07, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/01/2013

pdf

text

original

Fact Sheet 2003-02

P E R P E T U A L   M O T I O N  VS .   “P E R P E T U A L  W O R K I N G  M A C H I N E S   C R E A T I N G  E N E R G Y  F R O M   NOTHING” 
© T. E. Bearden, Aug. 21, 2003

FIRST PROBLEM: FOR A CENTURY THERE HAS BEEN A KNEE‐JERK  SCIENTIFIC REACTION THAT PERPETUAL MOTION IS FORBIDDEN. IT ISN’T. 
• Newton’s First Law is the law of perpetual (uniform) motion. It can be stated as:

“An object placed in a state of motion remains perpetually (uniformly) in that state of motion until changed by the action of an external force.”
• It is proven in countless actual experiments. o Toss something out of a shuttle in space, and it continues with that velocity. o Throw a ball on the earth, and its forward velocity continues, with the addition of a pull back to earth by the force of gravity, until it strikes ground. o Decay time for a superconducting current in a closed loop is experimentally greater than 10 years, and theoretically greater than 10 million years. Without the law of perpetual motion, there would be no stability in the universe. All would be random fluctuation, and the observable universe could not exist. If forces act continuously on an object in motion, the forces may be conservative and sum to a net zero around a closed cycle, providing what is called a conservative system. A conservative system remains in motion indefinitely, even though its “first law” motion is continuously changed. This is a second kind of perpetual motion. Perpetual motion under Newton’s laws is recognized by physicists and thermodynamicists. E.g., Roy {1} states:

• •

“It follows from Newton's laws that an isolated system in motion, on which no [net] force or torque is acting, exhibits precisely perpetual motion of the second kind. An example of perpetual motion of the second type is the orbiting of electrons around the atomic nucleus. … perpetual motion of the second type is common on atomic and celestial scale; however, such a motion is not common in everyday life. The best known example of perpetual motion in everyday life is superconductivity, in which a current circulates ceaselessly in a wire loop without a battery.”

SECOND PROBLEM: FOR A CENTURY, “PERPETUAL MOTION” HAS BEEN  EQUATED AS “PERPETUAL WORKING MACHINE WITH NO ENERGY INPUT”. 
• E.g., Max Planck {2} stated this misconception as follows:

“It is in no way possible, either by mechanical, thermal, chemical, or other devices, to obtain perpetual motion, i.e., it is impossible to construct an engine which will work in a cycle and produce continuous work, or kinetic energy, from nothing.”
• A few scientists understand Newton’s first law better than that. Kuphaldt states {3}:

1

Fact Sheet 2003-02
“So far as anyone knows, there is no theoretical time limit to how long an unaided current could be sustained in a superconducting circuit. If you're thinking this appears to be a form of perpetual motion, you're correct! Contrary to popular belief, there is no law of physics prohibiting perpetual motion; rather, the prohibition stands against any machine or system generating more energy than it consumes…”
• Most scientists seem to reason along lines similar to Planck’s statement. They assume “perpetual motion” is against the laws of physics, and they erroneously infer that a perpetual motion machine continually does work without any energy input. So we examine Planck’s statement very carefully, to clearly show the logical error. Planck’s statement contains two statements, which—slightly paraphrased—are: o “Perpetual motion is impossible.” o “No engine can produce continuous work or energy from nothing.” o He equates the two by the “i.e.,”, assuming they are the same thing. Planck’s first statement is a false premise refuted by Newton’s first law. An object placed in motion freely remains in that state of uniform motion indefinitely until changed by an external force. Further, it need receive no energy input to do so, and it need accomplish no work to do so. Planck’s second statement is true, since energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Any system outputting energy (as work or energy) must receive the energy as an input. By equating the two, Planck equates a false premise and a true statement, and assumes the true statement proves the false premise. That is a logical non sequitur. Thus Planck’s overall statement is falsified since it advances a false premise and a logical non sequitur. Continuous working machines are perfectly permissible so long as the necessary energy input is provided to them. Systems far from equilibrium and continuously receiving energy from their active environment can do continuous work. Examples are the windmill, waterwheel, sailboat, common solar cell, and every charge {4}. The difference between efficiency ξ and coefficient of performance (COP) must be clearly understood. Efficiency ξ is the ratio of the useful energy output of the system to the total energy input to the system from all sources, and is stated as a percentage. COP is the ratio of the useful output energy to the operator’s energy input only, and is stated as a decimal. E.g., the common home heat pump may have a nominal efficiency of only ξ = 50%, waste half of all the energy input to it, and yet exhibit COP = 3.0 to 4.0 under nominal atmospheric conditions. It is not necessary that the operator furnish all or even any of the input energy to a power system, if the active environment contributes part or all of the required input. Even a COP = ∞ EM energy transducer or power system is permissible, as experimentally demonstrated by the solar cell and by the source charge. A nominal solar cell, e.g., may have an efficiency of only 17%, and thus waste 83% of the total energy input to it. Yet the operator inputs nothing, and the COP = ∞. The source charge also exhibits COP = ∞, consumes positive entropy of the virtual state, and produces negative entropy in the observable state. It proves that systems

THE SOLUTION: PLANCK’S STATEMENT IS FALSE. 

• • •

FURTHER DISCUSSION: EFFICIENCY, COP, GEOMETRY, AND SYSTEMS. 
• • •

• •

2

Fact Sheet 2003-02

producing continuous negative entropy are possible, as shown in theory {5}, in violation of the present second law of thermodynamics which states dS ≥ 0. The present second law is based on Klein’s geometry and group theoretic methods {6}. In Leyton’s object-oriented geometry and more advanced group theoretic methods {7}, negative entropy is also included and the second law must be extended to include it. In Klein {6} geometry, a broken symmetry at a given level reduces the overall group symmetry. In Leyton {7} geometry, a broken symmetry at a given level increases the overall group symmetry since it generates a new symmetry at the next higher level, while retaining the information on the lower level symmetries. Every charge in the universe continuously outputs real, observable EM energy, transducing disordered virtual energy freely furnished by the active vacuum {4}. Thermodynamically the charge is a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system. It is the first known physical EM system continuously producing negative entropy {5}. All the field energy and potential energy in every EM system and EM device comes directly from the local vacuum, via the source charges in the system or device {4}. The charge {4} proves it is possible to produce EM NESS power systems that output energy and power loads freely, with energy received and transduced from their active vacuum environment. Bohren’s experiment {8} and the entire field of “negative resonance absorption of the medium” prove that excess EM energy can be freely extracted from the vacuum. The material in the medium produces 18 times as much energy output as the operator inputs. The experiment is replicable {9} and is repeated numerous times each year. A comprehensive treatise on the principles of such systems and real examples achieved by inventors and researchers has been given {10}.

THE IMPLICATIONS: 
• • • • •

References: 1. Bimalendu N. Roy, Fundamentals of Classical and Statistical Thermodynamics, Wiley, Chichester, 2002, p. 59. 2. Max Planck, Treatise on Thermodynamics, 3rd. edition, Dover, New York, 1945. 3. Tony R. Kuphaldt, Lessons in Electric Circuits, Vol. 1, D.C., Jan. 5, 2003; Chapter 12: see http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/DC/index.html 4. See Fact Sheet, T. E. Bearden, “The Source Charge Problem: Its Solution and Implications,” Aug. 18, 2003. 5. (a) D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States," J. Stat. Phys., 109(3-4), Nov. 2002, p. 895-920. Surprised by their results, they felt that probably no real physical system could exhibit such Gibbs entropy (continuous negative entropy). The charge is the first physical system to be nominated as doing so; see reference {4} above. 6. Felix Klein, "Vergleichende Betrachtungen über neuere geometrische Forschungen," 1872; also see I. M. Yaglom, Felix Klein and Sophus Lie: Evolution of the Idea of Symmetry in the Nineteenth Century, Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 1988. 7. Michael Leyton, A Generative Theory of Shape, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001. For the importance of Leyton’s geometry and new methods, see T. E. Bearden, Fact Sheet, “Leyton’s Hierarchies of Symmetry: Solution to the Major Asymmetry Problem of Thermodynamics,” Aug. 22, 2003. 8. Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?" Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more

3

Fact Sheet 2003-02

energy than is in the light incident on it. Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. 9. E.g., see H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on “How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’},” Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327. 10. T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002.

4

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->