Author Topic: Perpetual motion proposal for criticism  (Read 16411 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11943
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Perpetual motion proposal for criticism
« Reply #125 on: September 30, 2026, 05:09:32 pm »
In nuclear reactions, such as fission, the released energy is from the binding energy originally holding the nucleus together.  Mass-energy total is conserved.
In other interesting events, such as pair-production where a photon whose energy is above 1.022 MeV generates a  pair of massive particles (negative-charge electron and positive positron, each 0.511 MeV/c2), another object (a nearby heavy nucleus) must join into the event to conserve momentum while gaining a small amount of kinetic energy (recoil).
 
The following users thanked this post: paul cotter

Offline studiot

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Country: gb
Re: Perpetual motion proposal for criticism
« Reply #126 on: September 30, 2026, 10:21:46 pm »
In nuclear reactions, such as fission, the released energy is from the binding energy originally holding the nucleus together.  Mass-energy total is conserved.
In other interesting events, such as pair-production where a photon whose energy is above 1.022 MeV generates a  pair of massive particles (negative-charge electron and positive positron, each 0.511 MeV/c2), another object (a nearby heavy nucleus) must join into the event to conserve momentum while gaining a small amount of kinetic energy (recoil).

Yes indeed these follow the structure and setup of the first law where changes are just a matter of shifting existing energy form one box to another.

But there are many more fundamental processes where this is not the case.

For instance the photons in pair production above follows the

E =   pc  rule

Virtual photons do not.

These are examples of effect that lie at the foundation of QM which is driven by the Principle of Least Energy.

QM allows a system to 'borrow' energy from outside the system - which may be a vacuum or nowhere at all, in order to overcome an energy barrier allowing reconfiguration to a lower energy state.

Virtual particles, the formation of Cooper pairs in superconductivity, the formation of Higgs bosons (and thus mass) are micro examples,

There are many examples of this in chemistry, resonance of the benzene molecule, delocalising the bonds being one of them.

 

Offline paul cotter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 732
  • Country: ie
  • retired but still get called upon occasionally
Re: Perpetual motion proposal for criticism
« Reply #127 on: October 01, 2026, 06:56:30 am »
I am still waiting for an explanation of how the aromatic nature of benzene breaks the conservation of energy.
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4980
  • Country: us
  • DANDY fan (Discretes Are Not Dead Yet)
Re: Perpetual motion proposal for criticism
« Reply #128 on: October 01, 2026, 10:48:40 pm »
5) The law of conservation of energy is more correctly The Law of Conservation of Mechanical Energy.  All sorts of complications arise extending it to include other forms of energy.

That's not right at all! Conservation of energy applies everywhere: electrical generators and motors, solar panels, batteries, chemical reactions, animal metabolism... Outside of nuclear reactions, energy cannot be created or destroyed, thus is always conserved.

Consider a hydro-power electrical generator:  mechanical energy of water falling through gravity goes in, electrical energy goes out on wires, then can power a light bulb.

The late, great Steve Baer (of Zomeworks fame) addresses this very thing in his small book Sunspots, under a heading "Dams and Hydroelectric Stations":

Quote
Look at dams and hydroelectric stations. They produce enormous amounts of electricity. It amounts to several percent of the national consumption. Yet if this electrical energy were returned to heat the river with gigantic electric resistance heaters below the dam, it would change the temperature of the river very little. The hydroelectric plant or the waterfall is the perfect scene to compare thermal energy and mechanical energy.

If a pound of water fell 778 feet, when it hit its kinetic energy would be converted to thermal energy and the temperature would rise one degree Fahrenheit. Then a dam 778 feet high is a one degree Fahrenheit dam.

Boulder Dam [Hoover Dam] on the Colorado River is 725 feet high. Bridal Veil falls [in Yosemite Park] is 620 feet high. Neither of them is high enough to heat its water one degree Fahrenheit on impact.

The water going through the turbines of a hydroelectric plant can do two things. It can give its energy to the turbine wheels, then to the generators, and finally to someone's light bulb. (Given the speed of electricity, this happens very fast.) Or, if the turbine wheels stall, the water churns and splashes and warms itself up.

One could test the efficiency of a turbine by checking with a very accurate thermometer the temperature difference between the incoming and outgoing water. Heat in such situations is a measure of the mistakes and inefficiencies of the generating mechanism.
 
The following users thanked this post: booscrawl


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf

 

-->