Arguments and refutations, pseudo-arguments and conjectures, insights and counter-strategies.
I use to rely on three principles which were confirmed over centuries.
Prof. Bürger provided in his column of the Spektrum der Wissenschaft (German issue of the Scientific American) a plausible explanation why a PMM, once set in motion cannot be of long duration: "If the intended consumer does not completely use the energy of the produced power, the machine would store the produced energy either in movement or in its structure, i.e. it accellerates or heats up, until it eventually would melt down or explode"1 (p.113).
Eg. from rotating machines the produced energy would lead to accellerate
the device until it is torn into pieces by centrifugal forces.
I'm not completely happy with this consideration, as machines that have to work against air resistance my find a dynamic equilibrum, as air resistance roughly increases by the square of speed (in contrast to rolling friction). Very insistent PMM inventors may suggest to put the device into an evacuated chamber.
...then it is no perpetual motion machine as the device utilizes energy provided from outside. PMMs produce by definition energy out of nothing or at least deliver more energy than provided from outside to the mechanism.
An apparently very strong argument. Unfortunately it is wrong. Of course, circular conclusions are not acceptable. But here, there is no circular conclusion. The observation that the construction of a PMM seemed impossible, led to intense experimental and theoretic work. It took until the late 18th century, until ideas and according expressions like force, power, energy, impulse, momentum etc. were clearly sorted out and defined. On this foundation, it was possible to continue research work which finally proved that all sorts of energy can be transformed into each other. The conversion factors were experimentally determined to very high precision. By this, we can state that the equivalence of different types of energy can be regarded as truth. By this equivalence, we can say that eg. one horse power is always one horse power, independet if it is generated by a horse or by an electric motor. The law of energy conservation is a fact that is proved experimentally and by theory, so it is regarded as axiom.
Correct. However, all new inventions made up to now, were friendly enough to obey the laws of thermodynamics. Of course, many natural phenomens which we do not know yet, potentially might be useful for technical applications. But the ignorance of a theory does not imply that unknown phenomens do not obey their own laws, which necessarily are in interchange with known physical effects. If they weren't, how could we observe them?
For sure. If the precondition of a construction is a physically impossible construction element or power source, it is easy to use it later as an engine for a perpetual machine.
Sounds appealing. What are they? How can you measure them? "For this, up
to now, no appropriate meters exist". How can in this case a machine generate
useful work? At least it should be possoble to use the machine's principle
as source for a meter?
Especially in modern PMM literature, frequently expressions like ether, free energy open system, implsion theory etc. occur, without being defined in a clean way which is non-ambigous and allows experimental access. On such a base everything can be proven - and accordingly, most of the "theories" based on them are pretty weird and collapse if their basics are seriously checked.
On paper, any absurd or serious construction looks fine. As long as a concept has not been rigorously calculated and this calculation been checked independently, the functionality of every machine can be doubted. For sure, there are machines which can be expected to be workable without calculation work, as they obviously comply with the known principles and known constructions.
Agree. It will remain that way. The German magazine GEO wrote about an inventor who made around 400 PMM constructions which all merely ran, but after a short while ceased operation.
The PMM inventors might become rare (I doubt it), but they don't get extinct. They are they same class of people who trisect angles or square the circle. They do not want to realize, that science has closed these cases for very good reasons. Rarely enough, they are willing to follow mathematical analysis, mostly because of education deficits. What shall one do, if being involved into a discussion with such an inventor? How to proceed, if you are asked to check a silly concept or a flawed construction? It may work this way:
|...visit the exhibition!|
|Last Update: 4 July 2003 /||