" The declaration of perpetual mobile "
Taesoo Shin
Those who denied the invention asked me to read " thermodynamics and
conservation of
of energy etc " . I asked them to be more concrete .
But they did not . That's why they don't have reasonable
reasons against the
invention . So I dare say that the invention is at least
possible in theory .
The invention is not a perpetual mobile but " a kind of
pereptual mobile " .
Taesoo Shin
JeffMo
>Those who denied the invention asked me to read " thermodynamics and
>conservation of
>of energy etc " . I asked them to be more concrete .
>But they did not . That's why they don't have reasonable
>reasons against the
>invention . So I dare say that the invention is at least
>possible in theory .
To me, that sounds like a foolish reason to "dare say."
JeffMo
"[...] any effort at safe sex is totally, utterly immoral from top to bottom."
-- Rev. James Reuter, Office of Mass Media, Catholic Church of the Philippines
Uncle Al
>
> Those who denied the invention asked me to read " thermodynamics and
> conservation of
>
> of energy etc " . I asked them to be more concrete .
>
> But they did not . That's why they don't have reasonable
> reasons against the
>
> invention . So I dare say that the invention is at least
> possible in theory .
>
> pereptual mobile " .
Those who deny you are a fuming pile of bullshit have reasonable reasons
to be reasonably reasoned with, so I say you are a fuming file of
bullshit.
You are not an asshole but " a kind of asshole . " YO! STOOOPID!
Did you read thermodynamics? No.
Uncle Al says, "somebody who cannot master a spacebar cannot be trusted
with something complicated and dangerous like a piece of paper (paper
cuts!).
--
Uncle Al Schwartz
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
http://uncleal.within.net/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Ed
2. connect end #2 of flexible tubing to propeller device.
3. Voila - perpetual, gas-driven engine.
-----
Taesoo Shin <21C...@hitel.net> wrote in message
news:7n75s5$d7g$1...@kpt1000.hitel.net...
h.a.aalderink
Taesoo Shin wrote:
>
> Those who denied the invention asked me to read " thermodynamics and
> conservation of
>
> of energy etc " . I asked them to be more concrete .
>
> But they did not . That's why they don't have reasonable
> reasons against the
>
> invention . So I dare say that the invention is at least
> possible in theory .
>
> The invention is not a perpetual mobile but " a kind of
> pereptual mobile " .
Just place a brick on the floor and it keeps on moving at the same speed
relative to that floor. So it is a perpetual mobile.
|-|enri
SagaLore
>
>Those who denied the invention asked me to read " thermodynamics
and
>conservation of
>
>of energy etc " . I asked them to be more concrete .
>
>But they did not . That's why they don't have
reasonable
>reasons against the
>
>invention . So I dare say that the invention is at least
>possible in theory .
>
>The invention is not a perpetual mobile but " a kind of
>pereptual mobile " .
Well as long as it's a kind, then it's okay.
SagaLore
Bryan W. Reed
Taesoo Shin <21C...@hitel.net> wrote:
>
>Those who denied the invention asked me to read " thermodynamics and
>conservation of
>
>of energy etc " . I asked them to be more concrete .
>
Uh, last I saw, they were asking you to be more concrete.
You've announced dozens of times now that you're announcing some invention.
Just bloody well announce the invention itself and get it over with!
How can you complain that people aren't giving specific critiques of your
"invention" when you won't even tell us specifically what it is?
And learn to use a goddamn spacebar! Your posts are downright painful to
look at!
Have fun,
Bryan
SagaLore
and
>conservation of
>
>of energy etc " . I asked them to be more concrete .
>
SagaLore
Chuck Stewart
cold wastes of his killfile haven't had Korean take-out in a
while... )
Uncle Al wrote:
>
<snip logical response to illogical post>
>
> Uncle Al says, "somebody who cannot master a spacebar cannot
> be trusted with something complicated and dangerous like a
> piece of paper (paper cuts!).
I actually think his spacing is the result of some arcane Korean
newsreader.
Not that that will save him tho...
Taesoo Shin wrote:
Nevermore.
> --
> Uncle Al Schwartz
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
Uncle Al
Two idiots - one who cannot type, one who cannot post! Now, will it be
linear or exponential growth?
John Abrams
 |
 |
John Abrams
Taesoo Shin
Is it so diifficult for you to understand the contents of the
invention ?
You have not tried to understand the invention and you have
tried to be siilly .
So I feel that some of the news group here is nearly full
of people who is next
to a fool . The invention is very simple . Try to
understand the invention . please .
IF you are not clear on this , Why don't you ask me what is
not clear to you ?
Taesoo Shin <21C...@hitel.net>이(가) 아래 메시지를
news:7n75s5$d7g$1...@kpt1000.hitel.net에 게시하였습니다.
Jim Deutch
>I am sorry to trouble you who have denied the invention .
>Is it so diifficult for you to understand the contents of the
>invention ?
>You have not tried to understand the invention
You have not tried to explain the invention: that is why it is
difficult for us to understand the invention. By the way: it is
not an "invention" unless you have a working model.
Jim Deutch
Donald Burgess
Jim Deutch <10313...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
<7na48o$2ok$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>...
>Taesoo Shin <21C...@hitel.net> wrote in message
><7n9k5f$cuu$1...@kpt1000.hitel.net>...
>>I am sorry to trouble you who have denied the invention .
>>Is it so diifficult for you to understand the contents of the
>>invention ?
>>You have not tried to understand the invention
>By the way: it is
>not an "invention" unless you have a working model.
>Jim Deutch
Sorry, Jim, not accurate.
Three of my patents had their 'working models' designed AFTER the patent was
issued. It is enough to demonstrate the concept that can be constructed by
someone skilled in the trade, and a sound explaination of principles. It is
in fact rare to have a working model. Many people still believe the PTO
requires them and that is not so.
Regards, Don
Ken Cox
> It is
> in fact rare to have a working model. Many people still believe the PTO
> requires them and that is not so.
I had heard, though, that the PTO has a rule requiring a working
model in one particular case -- when the claimed invention is a
perpetual-motion machine. True, or urban legend?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Randy Poe
> So I feel that some of the news group here is nearly full
> of people who is next
> to a fool . The invention is very simple . Try to
> understand the invention . please .
> IF you are not clear on this , Why don't you ask me what
Could you PLEASE try to figure out why your posts are
so full of large amounts of white space? This makes them
incredibly irritating to see on screen, let alone read,
so you are automatically prejudicing everyone against
you before you complete a single sentence.
My admiration goes out to all those who have struggled
through enough to actually comment.
- Randy
P&L
Welcome idiots and frustrated inventors web site. If you claim this
device works in theory, then it works. I have no reason to doubt or
ridicule your invention. Good luck, if it works great, if it does not it
may lead to other ideas and creations. If it is a farce it is a farce.
Keep in mind anyone that ridicules an idea in an inventors NG is not an
inventor period!!! No question about it, Note all the folks that
regularly add comments of negative value spend less time creating and
more time wasting creative time than those trying no matter how crazy an
idea is.
By the way anyone trapped into the laws of therm. are trapped, and not
really inventive.
Taesoo Shin wrote:
>
> I am sorry to trouble you who have denied the invention .
> Is it so diifficult for you to understand the contents of the
> invention ?
> You have not tried to understand the invention and you have
> tried to be siilly .
> So I feel that some of the news group here is nearly full
> of people who is next
> to a fool . The invention is very simple . Try to
> understand the invention . please .
P&L
negative vibes in this NG. Good luck, make millions.
Donald Burgess wrote:
>
> Jim Deutch <10313...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> <7na48o$2ok$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>...
> >Taesoo Shin <21C...@hitel.net> wrote in message
> ><7n9k5f$cuu$1...@kpt1000.hitel.net>...
> >>I am sorry to trouble you who have denied the invention .
> >>Is it so diifficult for you to understand the contents of the
> >>invention ?
> >>You have not tried to understand the invention
> >snip
>
> >By the way: it is
> >not an "invention" unless you have a working model.
> >Jim Deutch
>
> Sorry, Jim, not accurate.
>
> Three of my patents had their 'working models' designed AFTER the patent was
> issued. It is enough to demonstrate the concept that can be constructed by
> someone skilled in the trade, and a sound explaination of principles. It is
> in fact rare to have a working model. Many people still believe the PTO
> requires them and that is not so.
>
> Regards, Don
P&L
Jason Dean wrote:
>
> Have you heard lately that the laws of physics prevent any kind of PMM. It
> is called entropy and it will beat you every time.
>
> Taesoo Shin <21C...@hitel.net> wrote in message
> <7nblek$7jb$2...@kpt1000.hitel.net>...
> >Is it impossible for you to understand the contents of the
> >invention ? If possible , tell me the reasons why
> >the invention is impossible . Can you,,,,,,,, ?
> >
> >Ken Cox <k...@research.bell-labs.com>이(가) 아래 메시지를
> >news:3798CE...@research.bell-labs.com에 게시하였습니다.
> >> Donald Burgess wrote:
> >> > It is
> >> > in fact rare to have a working model. Many people still believe the
> PTO
> >> > requires them and that is not so.
> >>
P&L
Randy Poe wrote:
>
> Taesoo Shin wrote:
> > So I feel that some of the news group here is nearly full
> > of people who is next
> > to a fool . The invention is very simple . Try to
> > understand the invention . please .
> > IF you are not clear on this , Why don't you ask me what
>
> Could you PLEASE try to figure out why your posts are
> so full of large amounts of white space? This makes them
> incredibly irritating to see on screen, let alone read,
> so you are automatically prejudicing everyone against
> you before you complete a single sentence.
>
> My admiration goes out to all those who have struggled
> through enough to actually comment.
>
> - Randy
Randy Poe wrote:
>
> Taesoo Shin wrote:
> > So I feel that some of the news group here is nearly full
> > of people who is next
> > to a fool . The invention is very simple . Try to
> > understand the invention . please .
> > IF you are not clear on this , Why don't you ask me what
>
> Could you PLEASE try to figure out why your posts are
> so full of large amounts of white space? This makes them
> incredibly irritating to see on screen, let alone read,
> so you are automatically prejudicing everyone against
> you before you complete a single sentence.
>
> My admiration goes out to all those who have struggled
> through enough to actually comment.
>
> - Randy
Randy Poe wrote:
>
> Taesoo Shin wrote:
> > So I feel that some of the news group here is nearly full
> > of people who is next
> > to a fool . The invention is very simple . Try to
> > understand the invention . please .
> > IF you are not clear on this , Why don't you ask me what
>
P&L
Uncle Al wrote:
>
> Taesoo Shin wrote:
> >
> > Those who denied the invention asked me to read " thermodynamics and
> > conservation of
> >
> > of energy etc " . I asked them to be more concrete .
> >
> > But they did not . That's why they don't have reasonable
> > reasons against the
> >
> > invention . So I dare say that the invention is at least
> > possible in theory .
> >
> > The invention is not a perpetual mobile but " a kind of
> > pereptual mobile " .
>
> Those who deny you are a fuming pile of bullshit have reasonable reasons
> to be reasonably reasoned with, so I say you are a fuming file of
> bullshit.
>
> You are not an asshole but " a kind of asshole . " YO! STOOOPID!
> Did you read thermodynamics? No.
>
> Uncle Al says, "somebody who cannot master a spacebar cannot be trusted
> with something complicated and dangerous like a piece of paper (paper
> cuts!).
>
Taesoo Shin
If you can't point out , you can not deny the invention .
Donald Burgess <ai...@worldnet.att.net>이(가) 아래 메시지를
news:7nahmp$oph$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net에 게시하였습니다.
>
> Jim Deutch <10313...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> <7na48o$2ok$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>...
> >Taesoo Shin <21C...@hitel.net> wrote in message
> ><7n9k5f$cuu$1...@kpt1000.hitel.net>...
> >>I am sorry to trouble you who have denied the invention .
> >>Is it so diifficult for you to understand the contents of the
> >>invention ?
> >>You have not tried to understand the invention
> >snip
>
> >By the way: it is
> >not an "invention" unless you have a working model.
> >Jim Deutch
>
>
> Sorry, Jim, not accurate.
>
> Three of my patents had their 'working models' designed AFTER the patent
was
> issued. It is enough to demonstrate the concept that can be constructed
by
> someone skilled in the trade, and a sound explaination of principles. It
is
> in fact rare to have a working model. Many people still believe the PTO
> requires them and that is not so.
>
> Regards, Don
>
>
Taesoo Shin
invention ? If possible , tell me the reasons why
the invention is impossible . Can you,,,,,,,, ?
Ken Cox <k...@research.bell-labs.com>이(가) 아래 메시지를
news:3798CE...@research.bell-labs.com에 게시하였습니다.
> Donald Burgess wrote:
> > It is
> > in fact rare to have a working model. Many people still believe the PTO
> > requires them and that is not so.
>
Taesoo Shin
If possible , let me know how to arrange . Thank you for your
message .
Randy Poe <q...@dgsys.com>이(가) 아래 메시지를
news:3798D62C...@dgsys.com에 게시하였습니다.
Taesoo Shin
been on R & R .
Jim Deutch <10313...@compuserve.com>이(가) 아래 메시지를
news:7na48o$2ok$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com에 게시하였습니다.
> Taesoo Shin <21C...@hitel.net> wrote in message
> <7n9k5f$cuu$1...@kpt1000.hitel.net>...
> >I am sorry to trouble you who have denied the invention .
> >Is it so diifficult for you to understand the contents of the
> >invention ?
> >You have not tried to understand the invention
>
> You have not tried to explain the invention: that is why it is
> difficult for us to understand the invention. By the way: it is
Donald Burgess
Ken Cox wrote in message <3798CE...@research.bell-labs.com>...
>Donald Burgess wrote:
>> It is
>> in fact rare to have a working model. Many people still believe the PTO
>> requires them and that is not so.
>
>I had heard, though, that the PTO has a rule requiring a working
>model in one particular case -- when the claimed invention is a
>perpetual-motion machine. True, or urban legend?
Don't know Ken, but I would think it's legend since, to the best of my
knowledge, the patent office won't even consider a 'perpetual motion'
device.
Of interest to this group and while on the subject, has anyone read the
patent issued to Howard Johnson (no, not that one) patent number 4,151,431?
This patent is on a 'Permanent Magnet Motor' BUT it requires no outside
energy input!
It IS or appears to be the (unmentionable word) but he had to change the
name of the invention before the patent office would not reject it out of
hand. Of course, he theorizes that energy IS supplied by the unpaired
electrons in the ferrous material, etc., This rather obscure explanation
allows the PTO to examine and retain their warm and fuzzy feelings about the
conservation of energy.
I suggest, before taking Mr. Taesoo Shin to task over his inadvertent use
of the term 'perpetual' in his device description (a term he readily
confesses he misused), you explore the ramifications of the referenced
patent. Whether or not it works (and apparently the patent office thinks it
does) it should cause one to be a little slow to criticize with such
discourtesy, especially one that is not entirely comfortable with the
language.
I, for one , will look up Mr. Shin's explanation and try to understand it,
then I will try to tell him of any errors he may have made in his design, as
he has requested.
>
Your question, Mr. Cox, was entirely proper and I mean no criticism of you
posting.
Thank you.
Regards, Don.
>Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
P&L
......, besides if one argues an initial BANG set all electrons in
motion, should we think they may slow down and lose energy? So what,
near perpetual motion is fine. Then one can argue it took alot of
potential energy to set all -e in motion. So what, thanks for the
initial jolt to whom ever (GOD I BELIEVE)now let's catch it if you can.
Russell Harper wrote:
>
> P&L wrote:
>
> > Why are electrons in perpetual motion ?
>
> The 'why' is very complicated to explain, but this series of articles might help:
> http://ce029.cm.utexas.edu/paper7. What's remarkable is how long ago much of this
> work was done, yet it still has no presence in the lives of most people (other than
> an occasional and usually incorrect reference in Star Trek).
>
> Russell
P&L
Russell Harper wrote:
>
> Taesoo Shin wrote:
>
> > To you .
> > Russell Harper <rha...@intouchsurvey.com>...
> > > 5. Stop when you see one that reads (or translates to) "Thermodynamics" -
> > ...
> > > 11. Open the book to the first page (just past the table of contents)
> > > 12. Start reading and stop when you reach the index
> > ...
>
> To me what? That I should read 'Thermodynamics' (I have)? Perhaps you are under
> the impression that 'to you' is some kind of insult - without an appropriate
> hand gesture, it fails miserably...
>
> I think what you are looking for is someone to point out where your device will
> fail so that you can improve it by adding some fluid-filled chamber or some
> other gizmo to it. Your device is made from matter, has movable parts and relies
> on gravity, therefore friction is involved, therefore the device will lose
> energy, therefore it will eventually stop. Although friction is the most obvious
> reason, imagine two isolated bodies orbiting each other in a complete vacuum.
> I'm sure you agree that this would be the closest anyone could get to an ideal
> perpetual motion machine, yet entropy will eventually stop this device.
>
> Russell
P&L
perpetual would be useless other than being a neat toy. Hey sounds like
planets. Now if we can only attatch a ring gear and have a stationary
pinion (although rotating about its' axis)in space. Hmmmmm!
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
> In article <379C9A68...@intouchsurvey.com>, Russell Harper <rha...@intouchsurvey.com> writes:
>
> >imagine two isolated bodies orbiting each other in a complete vacuum.
> >I'm sure you agree that this would be the closest anyone could get to an ideal
> >perpetual motion machine, yet entropy will eventually stop this device.
> >
> In the case of two classical bodies orbiting in vacuum, they'll keep
> doing it for eternity. Also (and that's important) entropy doesn't
> stop anything, ever. Entropy is neitehr force, nor process, only an
> accounting device.
>
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
P&L
cleaning.
Russell Harper wrote:
>
> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
> > Russell Harper <rha...@intouchsurvey.com> writes:
> >
> > >imagine two isolated bodies orbiting each other in a complete vacuum.
> > >I'm sure you agree that this would be the closest anyone could get to an ideal
> > >perpetual motion machine, yet entropy will eventually stop this device.
> > >
> > In the case of two classical bodies orbiting in vacuum, they'll keep
> > doing it for eternity. Also (and that's important) entropy doesn't
> > stop anything, ever. Entropy is neitehr force, nor process, only an
> > accounting device.
>
> Do you mean classical as in Newton's? All macroscopic bodies exhibit
> quantum properties - h/mv and all that stuff, add in GR and you have
> momentum converted to EM radiation, etc...
>
> I like to think of entropy as a tendency.
>
> Russell
P&L
going towards chaos. I know, I know you can come up with examples that
appear to be potential energy eternally waiting to be unordered. But if
we could observe long enough the mere state of potential energy is
slowly going towards chaos. A steel ball at the top of a ramp waiting to
be rolled off if never pushed would eventually decay in some fashion. As
for the 2 bodies, I was wrong, an electron orbiting a proton fits the
description of 2 bodies. BTW going from order to chaos and back to order
is a process. A clean house becoming messy and then being cleaned up is
a process. Tell some home maker it is an accounting only!
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
> In article <379A5FC7...@mindspring.com>, P&L <wes...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >Try to tap into that system to extract work!! Just a system although
> >perpetual would be useless other than being a neat toy.
>
> Nobody here talked about useful. Only about erroneous
> interpretations of entropy.
Jason Dean
everlasting.
Ed wrote in message <7n7d5a$g...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>...
>1. connect end #1 of flexible tubing to mouth.
>2. connect end #2 of flexible tubing to propeller device.
>3. Voila - perpetual, gas-driven engine.
>
>-----
>
>Taesoo Shin <21C...@hitel.net> wrote in message
>news:7n75s5$d7g$1...@kpt1000.hitel.net...
Jason Dean
Taesoo Shin <21C...@hitel.net> wrote in message
<7nblek$7jb$2...@kpt1000.hitel.net>...
>Is it impossible for you to understand the contents of the
>invention ? If possible , tell me the reasons why
>the invention is impossible . Can you,,,,,,,, ?
>
>Ken Cox <k...@research.bell-labs.com>이(가) 아래 메시지를
>news:3798CE...@research.bell-labs.com에 게시하였습니다.
>> Donald Burgess wrote:
>> > It is
>> > in fact rare to have a working model. Many people still believe the
PTO
>> > requires them and that is not so.
>>
>> I had heard, though, that the PTO has a rule requiring a working
>> model in one particular case -- when the claimed invention is a
>> perpetual-motion machine. True, or urban legend?
>>
>> --
>> Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
>
>
Taesoo Shin
of my invention .
If you find any violations in the invention , tell me those
violations . Can you ,,,,, ?
Jason Dean <jd...@cherry.com.au>이(가) 아래 메시지를
news:N6mm3.1298$gT.1...@ozemail.com.au에 게시하였습니다.
Taesoo Shin
John Abrams <ABRAM...@webtv.net>ÀÌ(°¡) ¾Æ·¡ ¸Þ½ÃÁö¸¦ news:28990-379...@newsd-101.iap.bryant.webtv.net¿¡ °Ô½ÃÇÏ¿´½À´Ï´Ù.I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON PM SINCE I WAS A KID. FOR 20 + YEARS I HAVE BEEN
REFINING IT IN MY HEAD. AND I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE MADE. BE
CAREFUL NOT TO TELL TOO MUCH...IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH. I MADE UP TERMS
LIKE 1080 DEGREES WHICH WEREN'T USED BY SCIENCE - AT LEAST AS FAR AS I
KNOW- TILL YEARS LATER. MY FAVORITE- WHICH I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYWHERE ELSE
....HMMMM, I'LL KEEP THAT ONE TO MYSELF. LIKE I SAID-SHHHH- ON THE
DETAILS. GOOD LUCK. PS HAVE YOU CONSIDERED MOVING TO DETROIT?
Taesoo Shin
.
Hurry up or you will be a sluggard . The invention is very
simple . Any violations ?
Taesoo Shin <21C...@hitel.net>이(가) 아래 메시지를
news:7n75s5$d7g$1...@kpt1000.hitel.net에 게시하였습니다.
>
> Those who denied the invention asked me to read " thermodynamics
and
> conservation of
>
> of energy etc " . I asked them to be more concrete .
>
> But they did not . That's why they don't have
reasonable
> reasons against the
>
Taesoo Shin
Jason Dean
of not understanding your invention and others accusing you of not
explaining it. Regardless of what your invention is, it will not work if it
relies on a phenominon that is prohibited by LOP. I also have an invention,
and requires me to live once I put my head, unaided, through a brick wall.
Do not tell me I can not do it if you do not understand how my invention
works...
Taesoo Shin <21C...@hitel.net> wrote in message
<7ndv4d$3j6$1...@kpt1000.hitel.net>...
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>imagine two isolated bodies orbiting each other in a complete vacuum.
>I'm sure you agree that this would be the closest anyone could get to an ideal
>perpetual motion machine, yet entropy will eventually stop this device.
>
In the case of two classical bodies orbiting in vacuum, they'll keep
doing it for eternity. Also (and that's important) entropy doesn't
stop anything, ever. Entropy is neitehr force, nor process, only an
accounting device.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
JeffMo
>Until it doesn't, right?
Of course...and thus the request for a working model...
The standard may be a bit higher for extraordinary claims, especially
ones that fall into a class long discredited. It may not seem fair,
but it's a small price to pay for the myriad false claims of the past.
JeffMo
"[...] any effort at safe sex is totally, utterly immoral from top to bottom."
-- Rev. James Reuter, Office of Mass Media, Catholic Church of the Philippines
JeffMo
>Why have you been so long ? Answer me and be quick about the invention
>.
>Hurry up or you will be a sluggard .
Damn, that would suck.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>
>me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> Russell Harper <rha...@intouchsurvey.com> writes:
>>
>> >imagine two isolated bodies orbiting each other in a complete vacuum.
>> >I'm sure you agree that this would be the closest anyone could get to an ideal
>> >perpetual motion machine, yet entropy will eventually stop this device.
>> >
>> In the case of two classical bodies orbiting in vacuum, they'll keep
>> doing it for eternity. Also (and that's important) entropy doesn't
>> stop anything, ever. Entropy is neitehr force, nor process, only an
>> accounting device.
>
Yes.
>All macroscopic bodies exhibit quantum properties - h/mv and all that
>stuff, add in GR and you have momentum converted to EM radiation, etc...
You only get EM radiation if they're charged. And that's classical.
Granted, with GR you may get gravitational waves.
>
>I like to think of entropy as a tendency.
Its book keeping. Like the employment index. It follows changes in
employment, not causing them.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Try to tap into that system to extract work!! Just a system although
>perpetual would be useless other than being a neat toy.
Nobody here talked about useful. Only about erroneous
interpretations of entropy.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
Taesoo Shin
pearl before xxxxxx .
Damn, that would suck . Please shut up .
JeffMo <jef...@dipstick.cfw.com>이(가) 아래 메시지를
news:Xn1n3.217$pg4....@typ11.nn.bcandid.com에 게시하였습니다.
Taesoo Shin
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>I agree entropy doesn't stop anything except order. Anything in order is
>going towards chaos. I know, I know you can come up with examples that
>appear to be potential energy eternally waiting to be unordered. But if
>we could observe long enough the mere state of potential energy is
>slowly going towards chaos.
I'm afraid that the sentences above are approaching chaos, and not
slowly at all.
>Tell some home maker it is an accounting only!
It is accounting only. Learn some physics if you want to talk about
it.
Bryan W. Reed
P&L <wes...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I agree entropy doesn't stop anything except order. Anything in order is
>going towards chaos. I know, I know you can come up with examples that
>appear to be potential energy eternally waiting to be unordered. But if
>we could observe long enough the mere state of potential energy is
>be rolled off if never pushed would eventually decay in some fashion. As
>for the 2 bodies, I was wrong, an electron orbiting a proton fits the
>description of 2 bodies. BTW going from order to chaos and back to order
>is a process. A clean house becoming messy and then being cleaned up is
>me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>
>> Nobody here talked about useful. Only about erroneous
>> interpretations of entropy.
>>
>> me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Mati was right the first time. Unfortunately, one has to understand a fair
amount of statistical mechanics before really understanding why.
Let's try it in a nutshell and see how we do, though. Entropy is the
logarithm of the number of states available to a system. "Available"
here basically means "consistent with the macroscopic parameters,"
those parameters being things like temperature, pressure, phase, etc.
A system of 10^23 particles in, say, a gaseous state will have a huge
number of ways of filling a given volume at a given temperature that
are all indistinguishable from a macroscopic perspective. Take the
logarithm of this number, and that's the entropy of the gas under these
conditions.
Now double the volume by adding a second container of the same size right
next to the first one and removing the barrier between them. The number
of states available to the system increases dramatically. Each particle
has twice as many places it can be than it had before (this can be made
precise, by the way, by counting quantum states). The entropy increases.
Will the entropy ever spontaneously decrease back down to its old value?
Almost certainly not. The set of states consistent with all the molecules
being in one half of the double-size container is a tiny, tiny fraction of
the number of states now available to the system. The odds are that you
could literally wait a billion years and not even come close to seeing it
happen. This is a very common result whenever you have a macroscopically
large number of particles in the system.
So now let's generalize this. What sets of macroscopic parameters are most
likely to come about from random bumping around of particles, if we assume
that, over time, all the quantum states are going to be sampled about
equally? The answer is simple--the more quantum states are consistent with
a given macroscopic state, the more likely that that macroscopic state will
come about.
This is the key. This is where entropy comes in as a useful bookkeeping
quantity. Entropy keeps track--directly--of the number of quantum states
consistent with a given macroscopic state. A state with higher entropy is
more likely simply because there are more ways to bring it about. And
that's really all there is to it! Further, once the system has found its
way into a high-entropy state, it's really unlikely for it to ever drop
back down into a low-entropy state, just from the shear force of numbers.
So entropy is not a "force." It's not a _fundamental_ tendency. It's just
a way of keeping track of what's likely to come about and what's not,
through the simple technique of counting the number of ways each outcome
can come about. The concept of entropy doesn't add anything to the
dynamics that wasn't already inherent in the system. All it does is help
the scientist calculate what happens next.
Unfortunately, it's possible to get blinded by the results of entropy without
really realizing where it comes from, and to think of a tendency to increase
entropy as something "additional" that happens on top of the other laws of
nature. This way of thinking about it might be a useful shorthand in some
cases, but from a fundamental point of view, it's pretty misleading.
This came up recently in a discussion on proton decay. Somebody was
basically saying, "The proton would have to break down eventually, because
of entropy." The response was, "not if there's no available mechanism for
the break-down, it won't." The first person was apparently thinking of
entropy as a force of nature rather than as a bookkeeping aid, and this
thinking got in the way and caused an erroneous conclusion. Better logic
would be to realize that there may or may not be a mechanism for proton
decay, and that entropy has nothing to say in the matter.
Have fun,
Bryan
Bryan W. Reed
Taesoo Shin <21C...@hitel.net> wrote:
>Do you have nothing to say about the invention? I don't want to throw my
>pearl before xxxxxx .
>Damn, that would suck . Please shut up .
>
I see you've finally mostly fixed your spacebar problem. Looks much better
now. If you can get rid of the spaces right before your periods, then you'll
have it.
Anyway, finally after all this time I saw one of the rare, rare posts that
actually sort of describes the invention. It apparently is yet another of
the rotating/falling-weights/springs/counterbalancing sort of devices.
And I can tell you without looking at the details--it won't work.
And you're sure to scream at this, saying I couldn't possibly know.
And I'll tell you, "Sure I can know. I have a mathematical theorem on
my side. I can know that a+b = b+a without specific knowledge of a and
b (beyond the fact that they're real numbers). This situation is no
different."
Hopefully you'll read this and understand it and avoid any further waste
of time. I don't expect it, but I can hope.
If you have a system that obeys Newtonian mechanics, it will conserve
energy. This is a mathematical theorem. It's not an empirical law--it
can't be disproven by observation. Newtonian mechanics (in a general
sense) is a mathematical model of reality. Within this mathematical
model, energy is conserved. This can be proven, mathematically, meaning
there's no room for disagreement. The only way to not conserve energy
is by going to a system not covered by the Newtonian framework.
And even this may well not save you. Add special relativity and electro-
dynamics to the mathematical framework, it still conserves energy. Rewrite
the framework as quantum mechanics, and even then it conserves energy. Add
in general relativity, and . . . well . . . it gets complicated. But there's
no way your invention is using general relativistic effects to get around
energy conservation. Not if it's going to work while sitting on the surface
of the Earth.
So, if we take any set of components like weights, springs, pulleys, wheels,
axles, etc. that are well-known to obey Newtonian mechanics to an excellent
approximation, then No Matter How You Combine Them, they'll conserve energy.
I don't need to know the details of your invention to tell you that it must
conserve energy--all I need to know is that it can be adequately treated
by Newtonian mechanics.
So your system certainly can not produce energy. Even if you take advantage
of quantum and SR effects, it STILL can't produce energy. Throw in magnets
moving at .99c, and it still doesn't change the outcome.
I'll say one more time--this is not a rash judgment, this is not a matter of
opinion. This a mathematical theorem I'm quoting to you. The only question
is whether your system satisfies the assumptions of the theorem--and from
what I can tell, it does, easily. In fact, if it didn't, you'd have to be
taking advantages of laws of physics that nobody ever heard of. In which
case there would be no way to design your system, or analyze its behavior
even if you had a design! But I suspect there's no need to entertain such
wild ideas.
Further, in any real system, your bearings will dissipate energy over time.
The system will have a finite amount of energy when you start it moving, and
it will lose energy as time passes. It'll slow down. It has to.
If you're having trouble seeing where your device breaks down, try the
following web site:
http://prisoner.soe.bcit.bc.ca/rjw/pmm/text/contents.htm
It describes a whole bunch of proposed perpetual motion machines and analyzes
why they don't work. Perhaps you'll find these examples to be helpful.
Have fun,
Bryan
JeffMo
>Do you have nothing to say about the invention? I don't want to throw my
>pearl before xxxxxx .
>Damn, that would suck . Please shut up .
Will you listen if I tell you to shut up? Will it help if I say
"please?"
Grow up.
mrja...@gmail.com
Of course, there is really no such thing as a perpetual motion machine...well, maybe now that scientists have gone below absolute zero and found that it gets HOTTER. But, I`m not even going there now.
Everything wears out, so no machine can be perpetual.
I was just warning you to watch what you say, some people are very good at piecing bits and pieces together and figuring out the entire puzzle. To prevent this I came up with my own lingo to describe my ideas, their mechanisms and how they, at least in theory, would function - the funny thing was that science would later start using my terms, or had been using my terms and I didn`t know them at the time.
If you want to see real world examples of this visit Quirky.com, every day you see the same ideas being presented as new by new people. And this has been going on for years. With the Internet there are just too many people publishing their ideas and with only so many ways to do things, very little, if anything at all is new anymore.