Analyzing Claims Regarding "Breakthroughs in Physics"
At the rate of approximately one per month, I receive emails from people who claim to represent breakthroughs in physics that are called “over unity” or “perpetual motion,” where the purported efficiency of the process is greater than 100%, meaning that they put out more power than they consume. This concept, of course, violates the laws of physics, specifically the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Yet the fact that what the person is describing is theoretically impossible normally does not deter him in the slightest.
Yesterday, as an example, I got a phone call from a very serious chap in Australia who represents a team of inventors who are supposedly very close to demonstrating a prototype of exactly such a device. I normally don’t spend more than a few seconds with people like this, but he seemed so earnest and well-spoken that I took a few minutes to explain the simple, albeit unappetizing truth: he is being lied to. To which he asked, “Well, how do you explain the large number of people, some of them in large, credible institutions, who are working on this problem?”
I explained:
Yes, there are people “working” on this, though not in credible institutions, whether they’re large or small. General Electric employs more than 10,000 engineers, and I defy you to point to a single one that is being paid by the company to explore this arena. Why am I so confident? Because he, his boss, and everyone directly connected with using GE’s financial resources to try to design and build something theoretically impossible would be fired immediately. GE has managment, management reports to the board, the board reports to shareholders, and shareholders have expectations that their earnings stream is not being diluted with buffoonery.
And yes, I’m aware that there are people, like the people to whom you are connected, who are quite excited about this. They represent some mysterious blend of frauds and crackpots, and I’ve run into a large number of both over the years. “Crackpot” is a vague and unkind term, and so perhaps “ignorant person” would be better. In any case, I’ve run into many people who clearly believe most sincerely in the legitimacy of what they’re doing. They somehow hold tightly to the notion that they are very close to a breakthrough that functions in the real world; the fact that they never seem to get there somehow never diminishes their level of enthusiasm for their work. Frauds, on the other hand, know very well that there is no validity whatsoever to what they’re claiming, and are simply hoping to prey upon credulous/ignorant people who might invest in their lies.
It’s worthwhile to understand the underlying principles of math and physics on which these two laws are based, and you’ll travel a very long way to find a better explanation than this set of four 75-minute lectures on thermodynamics given by a professor at Yale: Ramamurti Shankar is John Randolph Huffman Professor of Physics at Yale. He received his B. Tech in electrical engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology in Madras and his Ph.D. in theoretical particle physics from the University of California, Berkeley. He joined the Yale faculty in 1977 after three years at the Harvard Society of Fellows. He is dedicated to teaching and has published two texts: Principles of Quantum Mechanics and Basic Training in Mathematics: A Fitness Program for Science Students.
There is no need to enroll at Yale to receive the benefits; they are all online for free; here’s the first in the series.
It’s not for people with zero background in the subject, though I think most educated people will be able to follow it. It comes with my very highest recommendation.
Now….does this satisfy everyone? Hell no. In fact, it’s often just an invitation for the guy to say, “Oh, the physicists don’t understand this.” And that in turn is an invitation for me to say, “OK, well give me a call when you get that working…..so long now.”
And then there’s Iceland, the country with the lowest CO2 footprint, mostly from enhanced geothermal. Drill 2 holes close together down to a 350 to 400 degree hot spot, pour water down one hole and steam will come out the other hole. Make clean energy and then send all the steam to all the cities in the country for free hot water to use, and to heat 85 to 90 % of all homes and businesses. Better than perpetual motion, brilliant!
USA has 50x more geothermal potential than Iceland, but 100x less desire to tap it.
If it were cost effective, we’d be doing it up one side and down the other.
The cost are about the same, about 1 billion dollars, to build a coal power plant, natural gas pp, oil pp, and an enhanced geothermal pp. The price goes up to10 billion for a nuclear pp.
Then the question is how much does it cost to send water down a hole, versus non stop digging and transporting coal, and oil. Fracking for gas, or going nuclear,not in my backyard
Plus there is a non-zero correlation to micro-earthquakes when injecting water in those areas…
I agree totally with you. Here in Australia we have massive geothermal potential; and the technological problems are being knocked over one by one. Check out geodynamics.com.au for some good video of a working 1MW plant…
I was surprised the find out that although Iceland is somewhat famous for its geothermal energy, almost 75% of its energy actually comes from hydroelectric: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ic.html Volcanic based Geothermal is very similar to fracking with similar issues: pollution coming up, potential for Earthquakes, but when it works it is renewable energy with an over 90% (24/7) capacity factor.
I was expounding on what happens to the steam after it makes energy, as free heat and hot water for close to 90%, and the Blue Lagoon. Before geo, they had hydro, coal and oil. Now it’s hydro, and geothermal.
Interestingly, most of the “inventors” flog the same devices which have been proposed numerous times since the middle ages. And it is usually quite easy to point out the fallacy using classical physics, if one wants to. I once had an encounter with an “inventor” who had set up a prototype perpetual mobile based on a water tower next to my office in Queensland.His backers included university lecturers and modern hippies and mystics.
Well Craig,
These claims of wondrous devices do get a bit tedious I admit; but I think that “ignorant person” is a bit harsh. I think “Dreamers” or ” Wanna-be Einsteins or Teslas” is a far better description. Just remember: it’s possible that one of these “ignorant Persons” will one day astound all of us with a device that takes physics into a completely new realm.
Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_bird
Just one REAL LIFE example of a “perpetual machine” i.e. this machine can produce energy without any kind of fuel input. IT’S A FACT.
http://www.freeenergyworldwide.com/Pages/default.aspx
Another example of a REAL perpetual type machine which EXISTS IN REALITY.
Craig’s whole “logic(?)” lies on just one fact, BIG CORPORATIONIS AREN’T INTERESTED AND THEREFORE IT ISN’T POSSIBLE. But, he and people like him have no idea that big corps rarely interested in breakthroughs and I don’t know about any GOOD breakthroughs that has been invented in the labs of big corporations.
Your “drinking bird” is not a perpetual motion machine. It requires a fuel, in this case water, and depends on the energy in the phase change between liquid and vapor states, as well as capillary action, and a delicate balance between the bird’s body and its fulcrum- all well-known phenomena. As long as sufficient liquid exists in the cup, the bird will drink. When too much water evaporates, it will die.
I have not investigated the details of the other device you mention, but its very description on the opening page (uses environment air as the only fuel) disqualifies it as a perpetual motion device; after all, an ordinary windmill does this.
To qualify as a perpetual motion device the device must use no external energy at all. An ordinary pendulum, if large and heavy enough, can be seen to be constantly in motion, but that does not mean it is a perpetual motion machine. It is being excited by external sources such as ground and/or air vibrations, the earth’s orbital motions and precessions, and other possible sources.
I belong to a small group of technically inclined friends who meet once a week over breakfast to discuss our various interests, and a few in the group were excited over “cold fusion”. Some are convinced that it is an energy source exhibiting “over-unity”, that is, producing more energy than it consumes. I constantly remind them that one must consider ALL possible energy inputs before you can assume such a property, and many inputs may not be obvious- sometimes deliberately so, especially by fraudsters.
Thanks for that link to Professor Shankar’s lectures, I look forward to watching them. I must admit the idea of over unity is very attractive. It doesn’t help being a gadget freak and a dreamer, a dangerous combination that could probably use some grounding…
Hi, Marc. Yes, there are good and useful ideas to pursue, and over-unity isn’t one of them.
Thanks Craig and Mark. I agree that “over unity” seems fruitless, and as long as the sun shines, is really unnecessary. Also because we must protect our access to sunshine for viability on earth, that abundant energy can be seen as a byproduct.
This brings to mind a noticeable detriment to our “common solar access” that is being gradually curtailed by “mined” energy being not so mindful. I have accidentally observed the diminished capacity of solar energy in my own collection devices and wonder if you have come across other creditable evidence of this. Seems to me there is growing potential for a huge class action suit against “mined energy that destroys the commons”, namely solar access. I’d be on board with that..
There is no doubt that “the commons” is taking a terrible beating at this point in human history.
Also, you are 100% correct about what you say about over unity’s not being necessary. We receive 6000 more power from the sun that we’re consuming; let’s just figure out how to convert 1/6000th of the sun’s power into useful work, and we can all forget we ever heard of coal, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_bird
One REAL LIFE example of perpetual motion machine i.e. a machine that runs by extracting ATMOSPHERIC HEAT and converting it into motion.
http://www.freeenergyworldwide.com/Pages/default.aspx
Another REAL example of a machine that can extract atmospheric heat and can convert it into power, IN REALITY.
As far as I know, there were BIG CORPORATIONS like GE existed during the time of Wright Brothers, but I don’t have any information that anyone have taken any kind of interest in the “flying machine”. As far as I know, very little breakthroughs has been discovered at the labs of big corps, which is the base of Craig’s logic.
Why would you say that it’s an example of perpetual motion when you realize that it’s converting atmospheric heat (with some extremely tiny efficiency) into kinetic energy? We’ve been building heat engines for 200 years.
Btw, I agree that big corporations generally are not focused on innovation that has any worthwhile purpose. They’re wonderful at selling poisonous soft drinks and fatty, salty, sugary food, cornering the market on PC operating systems with horrible products, exploiting monopolies at the expense of the consumer, selling pharmaceuticals whose side-effects are worse than the disease, building consumer products that are designed to fall apart, and so on.
Btw, I need to comment on your website, insofar as it’s representative of a very large number of presentations I come across frequently. It:
a) states the problem, i.e., global warming and its effects on polar bears and other living organisms. Aren’t we aware of that already? Does a correct statement of a problem mean that the solution that follows is going to be valid?
b) offers a solution that makes no sense in terms of science.
I don’t mean to single you out, but you did come along at a time in which I happen to be encountering a great number of similar claims, and it pains me to think people in the 21st Century buy into this.
I find that I respond to similar questions at about the same rate. Most fall into three categories: Why can’t we put some device on an electric car, a fan or motor to recover energy and make it go forever, why can’t we “power an ICE on water, and the whole business of magnetic motors…” After some reference to the laws of thermodynamics I refer to the Museum of Unworkable devices which I have enjoyed immensely http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm:
The magnetic motor scams on the you-tube frequently involve winding up a massive “magnetic motor” with a small unseen motor. When power is disconnected it “amazingly” runs a light bulb. Unfortunately many are not familiar with flywheel energy storage or that the human eye cannot detect a slowly dimming light bulb.
But I also make a distinction between those devices that claim to have an efficiency beyond unity and those that tap into another energy source. Heat pumps use a unusual source of heat energy. There are “dry-well” geothermal systems that can potentially manufacture electricity from ground source heat (not volcanic) if they can only get the economics and efficiency perfected as they can using CHP plus OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion.) Already some homes are heated with such ground source heat pumps.
Similarly I will allow that we might tap into another relatively unseen or unused source of energy. Some RFID chips will use radio frequency energy to power their devices. We presently know of about 5 ways to transmit energy wirelessly (sound, laser, magnetic resonance, induction…) and watching an electronic device come alive when it is not plugged in can seem like magic or some kind of perpetual motion if you don’t follow the source of the energy…. but it is not. There are also sources of energy we have little experience in using (lightning, humidity {to produce electricity} and possibly gravity and the Earth’s magnetic field.
Also we are learning to do some energy bending magic with meta materials. I suspect that this field will eventually bring us even some more unusual and unfamiliar effects.than it already has (objects we can’t see, feel or hear) Look for the day when we find a meta material that can bend gravity. .
The only way we have seemed to violate the laws of thermodynamics is with quantum mechanics and when we get into nuclear physics. Sadly though I would have to agree that 99% + of the claims are either someone who is promoting a scam or someone who does not understand physics well enough. Thanks for an inspiring article.
You are very welcome. And thank you for this marvelous comment. I learned a great deal here.
Breakthrough by whose definition? Standard Model? But that phrase is just a rhetorical device by which to avoid the more to the point and truth ‘reigning scientific paradigm’ that is, the one that gets funded. Using ‘reigning’ would admit to a previous paradigm and admit the possibility of a ‘sucessor.’
‘Big Bang?’ or big bust? That idea is an artifact of the atomic arsenal, part of the post war legend, parts of which do not age well. It is cosmogony, not cosmology: it is ‘Genesis’ warmed over.
Indeed, ‘theology’ would be the science of god. Before ~1200 CE, theogony was the term of art.
“Unity” is an idea whose basic assumptions need to be checked closely. Over-unity may well simply reflect something overlooked.
The perpetual motion and the energy from water etc crowds are definitely infatuated with energy intensive technology. They remind me of a statement made by Edward Teller, the so called father of the H bomb, back in the 50s. He said that nuclear fusion power was a mere 4 years away. Unfortunately the football stadium sized National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore hasn’t come close. If perpetual motion is actually true (a very big if) we are nowhere close to tapping into it. The real live problems we face today will only be overcome with real life solutions, not miracles.
Well said. Fortunately for us all, miracles aren’t required to get us where we need to go vis-a-vis low-carbon energy. That’s the good news. The bad news is that compassion, honestly. and intelligence ARE required, and they are in very short supply.
The more I read threads like this, the more I am convinced that physics should be a required subject in high schools and colleges. It should be impossible to be graduated from high school without having taken a one year course in physics. It should also be impossible to get a degree without having taking a one year physics course at the college level.
Recently someone told me that we should be accessing dark energy. I responded by telling him that we know too little about dark energy to utilize it in any way. I suppose that at some future date it could become possible, but I have strong doubts.