Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by thinhnghiem, Jun 25, 2013.
Because force and energy are not the same thing.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Right thinhnghiem but that just describes a pendulum motion, and it's immaterial whether pendulum conservative restoring forces owe to magnets or gravity or springs etc., or any such combination. What matters is that there is inevitably losses present - friction at pivot, wind resistance, periodic forces hence motion transferred to stand and carton, tiny eddy currents in magnets, and IF fields were high enough - hysteresis loss in magnets (but fields and their variation are likely between two and three orders of magnitude too small for that to matter). There is no identifiable GAIN mechanism present to offset these losses! Hence dragonfly motion should fade to essentially zero within a reasonable time of minutes, not even hours.
So unless you are in fact claiming dragonfly is an 'over-unity device' (as name 'non-stop-engine' implies), some external source of energy needs to be identified. We seem to have eliminated draughts, so what else is there but vibrations of some sort? Thus I suggest place setup on a sturdy wooden board in turn supported by at least one soft bed pillow lying on the floor not table. And best if that carton magnet is attached to is replaced by something more solid and stable - e.g. block of wood, or glass jar. Then repeat test for a good 24 hrs. Your choice though.
I did an indirect solution to your suggestion. That is, to compare the dragonfly before and after putting the big magnet near it
Before having big magnet, the dragonfly stays motionlessly. So, I concluded that the external force has been eliminated in my room.
Then, putting the big magnet near it, it began to move.
By compairing these two results, i can declare that the cause of the motion of the dragonfly is he magnet, not any external item like air vibration etc.. Is it OK?
uhm, sorry to have to correct you Aqueous Id.. perhaps you need to take a look at "metastability" or something similar and the sheer fact that as you already know, absolute rest is impossible.
So it will not stop as such but will simply conform to it's universal ambiance....
What member thinhnghiem has generously shared with the board, I believe, is a rather elegant way of showing that indeed all substance is in a state of "teetering" instability and that all substances are constantly moving. [Perhaps think "spin"]
Unfortunately no one has yet learned how to tap into and amplify this inherent instability [ apart from nuclear etc] for any useful purpose beyond merely demonstrating yet again the nature of metastability, and the fact that nothing is at absolute rest.
A suggestion to further explore is to place the device in a Faraday cage and neutralize any ambient EMR
Theoretically the Faraday cage would generate a slight state of localized Under unity [ not over unity ], I believe.
Interesting. If dragonfly (without external magnet present) is prodded, is the periodic motion close to the same frequency as when prodded with external magnet in usual position? It should be lower, but by how much? So can you stop-watch time it for X oscillations in each case and provide us the two oscillation frequencies?
Sure it will begin to move because as earlier explained you are using magnet to give dragonfly an indirect prod. It needs to be clearly stated that after that initial prod, rocking motion continues indefinitely (at least 24hrs), with external magnet motionless, breeze eliminating covering box in place etc. I assume you are saying that was the case.
Well if the two oscillation frequencies are are not too different and this rocking motion is persistent with no evident slowing to a stop over say a 24hr period, it sure sounds exciting! Like most folks have said though from the start, and you evidently agree, energy is not being created ex-nihilo in your 'non stop engine'. Moreover I can guarantee you energy is not being extracted from the magnets - their strength will be found to be unaffected regardless of duration of rocking motion. Dissipation is present as already explained, so a single initial input of energy via prod should for sure mean a steady drop in amplitude as that initial prod -> input energy of oscillation, degrades mainly to heat.
My only suggestion at this stage is that you contact physics or perhaps engineering department at a local university/college and explain the situation. Maybe you could tactfully arrange for someone there to actually do a controlled test. In the hugely unlikely event they replicate your result reported here, fame will be yours! Be prepared for a letdown though. Should you have that unlikely success, there is one 'scientific' test of last resort:
Call in a priest - and check for Poltergeist!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You are it seems seriously claiming that a macroscopic system like 'non stop engine' is being visibly powered at it's roughly 1-2 Hz oscillations by ZPE (zero point energy Eo = hν/2 = 'universal ambience?). How about doing a rough order-of-magnitude calculation, and see what turns up, before making such a wild claim.
So what is it - ZPE or ambient EMR as 'power source'? Apart from the enormous order-of-magnitude energy density issues, you do understand that coupling can only be efficient if input and mechanical oscillator frequencies are comparable, and input is periodic not stochastic as ZPE is? Not likely.
Sorry, but I make no such claim. Simply stating that if you place anything in a state of teeter [near balance] and are able to maintain that state movement will be the outcome. Not powered by anything other than the inherent nature of balance instability [ no absolute rest ]
I think you're conflating two different things on very different scales. As Q-reeus pointed out, things in the universe do have a theoretical minimum energy, but it's on the order of \(h\nu\) which is tiny. The macroscopic effect of an oscillator continuing to wobble long after the last energy input has nothing to do with this zero point energy. In fact, it has nothing to do with the "inherent nature" of anything at all. Different systems just take different amounts of time to dissipate energy, and this one apparently takes quite a while.
Actually, I'd be interested to know just how long this oscillator takes to damp down, because it sounds like it's extremely low-loss. It'd be tough to check on it at regular intervals without potentially restarting the oscillations, though... thinhnghiem, do you perchance have a camera with a time lapse mode with which you could monitor it?
You are entitled to your opinion... but as far as I can see from the OP we have a magnetic teeter device that is doing what magnetic teeter devices do. To conflate and call in ZPE or other exotic possibilities is IMO not necessary in this instance.
Experimenting with hundreds of suspended bar magnets over the years has proved that you can get a magnetic teeter device to.... uhm ....well .... teeter ...for hours/days, indefinitely especially if the set up is very fine tuned to the teeter. Any disturbance, interference will set it off or keep it running. However as soon as to try to take energy from the system the device's obvious movement will cease as the laws of thermodynamics seek balance.
The reason why it eventually stops could simply be the slight air resistance and inertia working on the "wings" of our "dragon fly"
Can I ask why ZPE was introduced to this situation?
There is a contradiction here. First you say it will run indefinitely if finely tuned enough, then say it will stop if energy is taken from system, then admit it will stop owing to air resistance ('inertia' is NOT a dissipative factor) doing just that! Having it each way like that only creates confusion. And if you have followed the whole thread, it should be evident there has been an attempt to systematically identify and eliminate all relevant influences that might explain reported behavior.
I made that call. Your technical language is quite nonstandard and the wording in #44 was implying just that:
Pray tell what else matched that thinking apart from ZPE? Maybe CMBR, but cryogenic cooling can beat that influence - only ZPE applies in all instances.
You really should work at adopting standard terminology. And if you are going to push for non-standard physics, try and give some precision and clarity to whatever alternative physics is being proposed.
You really don't read too good do you?
There is no contradiction if you read what is written rather than what you want to read.
Here, try again:
I see no reason to even consider ZPE in this situation as having any real or significance relevance.. and why should I?
You have a magnetic teeter device that is finely tuned to the teeter point. Any movement in the ambiance regardless of how small, is going to force it into movement. So what? What's the big deal about that? Nothing that's what...
I stick by comments made in #50. Especially the last quoted two passage there are directly implying an inherent irreducible motion as explanation. Which is quite different in meaning to simply saying environmental disturbances - wind, tremors etc. can excite and even maintain motion in a delicate pendulum device. Try and strive for both clarity and accuracy.
so you wish to admit that you are not reading correctly is that it.. by all means stick to your apparent mistake.
All objects of substance are in continuous movement... do you deny this?
When you are playing with an ultra-fine-tuned teeter point such as demonstrated by the dragonfly device, you are actually highlighting the very reason why absolute rest is impossible in this universe. Can you understand this simple point?
Try balancing a pencil on it's sharp point and think about it... why can't you find the balance point? Why can't the pencil stay balanced even if you get close to it?
Are you creating some sort of ZPE machine in doing this exercise? Nope!
Then re-read my first post to this thread...post #44
there is no contradiction other that what you are imagining...
No, but that is not the issue.
ZPE which is the ONLY fundamental impediment to absolute rest is by your own admission not relevant to your argument.
And you think a pendulum, which is the inverse situation to a pencil balanced on it's point, is somehow in metastable 'teeter'? Nope!
Ok this is interesting....
On what basis do you consider ZPE to be the ONLY fundamental impediment to the issue of absolute rest?
uhm..... the Book on my desk is a metastable teeter, as is the refrigerator in my kitchen etc ...all objects are in a state of chronic instability....I am sure this is what I stated so many times... hang on I'll check.... yep that's what I wrote.....
here a quote .. one of many;
A pendulum or a pencil are only two objects in a universe teeming with various substances.
Apart from ZPE only ambient thermal motion is a contender, and afaik there is no known theoretical limit to attaining arbitrarily close to absolute zero. And if there is, it's so vanishingly small as to be totally irrelevant to your 'everything is in a state of teetering instability' notion. Which is an erroneous statement about stability criteria as such and not environmental input.
So you persist is saying. If it were true nothing would be stable by definition. High time to get a decent understanding of what stability/instability really involves and what defines it. May I suggest a good read here for starters:
Nicely illustrates both the stable pendulum and unstable 'teetering point' situations.
Ok what I see is a contextual problem...
In the article you link to we are talking about an apparent net zero force situation what is referred to as a state of mechanical equilibrium. However when talking or discussing something that is teetering be that a pendulum or pencil or dragon fly device, we need to look deeper than localized equilibrium and discover that the moon is rising and the sun is setting etc.. That there are universal conditions beyond that which is described as equilibrium in a localized situation.
Does mechanical equilibrium apply to the situation regarding a fine tuned "magnetic field" generated teetering?
Is it even possible to consider that the dragon fly device or a pencil on it's sharp end is ever in a state of mechanical equilibrium?
I believe that the issue of mechanical equilibrium is out of context with this discussion.
There are other issues about using magnetic fields to create a teeter [instability] as well that have yet to be considered in this thread. [ I am wondering on relevance before posting ]
Are the worlds oceans ever in a state of mechanical equilibrium given the tidal effects offered by the moon?
Well, ok. If we're not including ZPE in the discussion, it sounds like your argument boils down to the idea that everything is changing on some time scale or another. The sun rises, the tides change, tiny air currents perturb magnetic pendulums... nothing is stable because everything is coupled to other systems, and perturbations get passed around the universe from one state to another.
This argument could be taken in two ways. First, you might mean that on the ultra-long time scales associated with the evolution of the universe as a whole, nothing is stable. This would be true, but not at all profound. On the other hand, you might mean that even on shorter, more "human" time scales, nothing is stable. If that's what you mean, then you're incorrect. Bose-Einstein condensates can sit in their energetic ground states for ridiculously long times without experiencing a single quantum of excitation, and superconductors can maintain a steady current loop for years with no loss at all. Sure, these systems take a lot of effort to put together and maintain, but they do exist. The only reason the magnetic pendulum we're talking about isn't stable is because it's not well-isolated from its environment. Put it in an evacuated cryostat on an optical table in a limestone quarry, and it wouldn't move for decades.
yes you are correct...
I guess the thing that I try to always keep in mind is that even though the object appears to be stable, unmoving and unchanging it is indeed part of the mundane and non profound fact that it is fundamentally in a state of constant change, Suffice to say that as long as the second hand on a clock keeps rotating everything must by sheer virtue of the passage of time, change. [time = change = movement]
To me it is not good enough to try and think of something in isolation to the big picture.
That is to say that if one states as a absolute that "all things of substance are inherently unstable due to the fact that they are constantly changing" then one needs to apply this absolute right across all areas of thought to remain consistent and free of self contradiction. [The term "NO absolute rest" is after all an absolute statement]
IMO, when we set up a teeter point balance issue like described in the op [dragon fly], due to the fine resolution we are experimenting with all aspects of universal fundamentals are being invoked and are on display, open for observation and detailed discussion. [philosophically and scientifically*?*]
In some regards one could relate this to the Uncertainty Principle or more to the point, the reason why this principle holds true. That is to say that at a infinitely resolving/reducing situation such as described by the Dragon fly magnetic field teeter system the uncertainty of an objects state is obvious and expressed in it's metastability.
So I am working from the absolute premise that nothing is at rest in this universe, there fore all things are inherently reactive, thus unstable.
The dragon fly is "moving through and around the balance point [ zero point ] that by virtue of universal conditions is unable to be sustained for even an infinitesimal amount of time. There fore it is in a state of constant "off-balance" whilst constantly attempting to achieve balance [ entropy ] and noting this it is quite realistic to consider this as exemplifying the inherent instability of all systems with in a relative stable range of reactions/actions and events.
The reason why this zero point can not be achieved may yet to be found to be that ZPE is gained/acquired by the object any time that point is found/ passed though etc thus fueling further action/time/movement/change...
To me this exercise is demonstrating yet again the paradox that absolute zero [zero point] presents to the universe, a paradox that ensures it's fundamental existence, as the creation of 4 dimensional space is the only possible resolution available for that paradox.
The use of a magnetic teeter device only highlights,exaggerates, amplifies and or magnifies these fundamentals for our curiosity.
I apologize in advance, if my language use is non-typical of scientific discussions
I am happy to see that you spend time to involve into discussion of my topic.
To say honestly, this experiment is done by, just for fun. It is no more than a relax after working time in office. I have no plan to look for fame, richness, or anything in the same kind of benefit
I have tested with some other models, before completing with the dragonfly model as you see in my screenshot. As I remembered, I have used two pendulums, each had a magnet as its weight. I thought that the propulsive force between the same poles of two magnets would make the pendulums vibrate around their balance positions forever. Of course I fail, but until now I still do not understand why I fail. It is nice if any of you can give an explanation
Separate names with a comma.