top

An altewrnative to the reality show?

Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Skeptics, sceptics, and Cynics    Page 1 of 1

Sun May 06, 2007 5:47 pm PostPost subject: An altewrnative to the reality show?
WaBoy
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 34
Location: Pacific NW - US/Canada

Reply with quote

Here's an alternative to the "reality show" theory. WARNING: not negative!

I was a little surprised to see the… interest… that Finsrud’s Perpetuum Mobile created – not here, necessarily, but within the primary Steorn forum community – more than 3400 postings! I never saw the mobile as anything other than a gifted artist’s ingenious rendition of what he imagined a perpetual motion machine to look like. As an engineer, the mechanical complexity of the piece was quite enjoyable, entertaining and, well… artistic. I never once thought anyone would see it as an actual PMM, let alone defend it as such.

The reality of “free energy” or “over-unity” is that current scientific understanding can readily explain why we can’t get something from nothing: the efficiency of a closed system cannot exceed 100%. Matter can be converted into energy, a thing in which we are constantly involved. We chemically process food into energy in order to walk, talk and think. We convert various forms of coal, oil, gasoline, alcohol and methane into heat which, in turn, performs various kinds of work. But oxidation is an inefficient way of converting matter into energy and can create toxic chemicals as a byproduct of the process. Those byproducts are slowly destroying the ecosystem in which we live.

Quantum mechanics (or quantum physics, if you prefer) is used to explain the leftover observable parts of the Relativity Theory that failed Einstein’s explanations. Einstein himself was dissatisfied with the theory and spent most of his life attempting to correct it. He was most dissatisfied with his own theories of gravity and inertia but was never able to reconcile his dissatisfaction with his mathematics. Quantum mathematicians who preceded, were concurrent with and followed Einstein attempted to assemble a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) or “Theory of Everything” with little success.

An example of this is the recently re-popularized “Zero Point Energy” or ZPE. There is absolutely no doubt that ZPE exists and there are a number of university level experiments that can accurately measure it. ZPE is often defined as: “The energy remaining in a volume of space containing a perfect vacuum at zero degrees Kelvin.” Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, another quantum principle, requires it. The problem is that the level of ZPE is so small as to be unusable – so far.

Hoaxers, swindlers, frauds, confidence men and practical jokers have offered “free energy” generators to uneducated and willing investors for centuries. They usually explain they have “discovered a loophole” in established scientific law – often waving a false flag of quantum mechanics – and can take out more energy from a closed system than is put into it. Their most common complaints are that University educators “teach the wrong things to physicists and engineers,” “established science does not allow alternative science proper support,” and there is a “conspiracy of energy companies” to suppress alternative energy resources. These complaints, in their various forms, predispose the mark to ignore conventional science and side with the “inventor” in a David vs. Goliath battle. Ironically, the investor hopes to become the new Goliath.

The question is: Is Sean McCarthy (and through him, Steorn) a new confidence man or practical joker – or does he actually have something to offer? We’re all either here or on the Steorn forum in the hope that, despite our common sense doubts, there might be a solution to the impending energy crash. Already Steorn claims to have “discovered a loophole” and, through the selection of a “scientific jury” implies that “established science does not allow alternative science proper support.” He’s not yet complained about a “conspiracy of energy companies” because I think he realizes the big multinationals already see the handwriting on the wall (peak oil) and would be the first to jump on board if they could convince their investors.

Could it be that Steorn is scamming Big Oil?

Why not? Steorn stuffs great wads of cash into their collective pocket, Big Oil stands there with egg on its face and we little guys get to laugh at the businesses that have been swindling us all these years and say to ourselves, “See? I knew it was a scam all along.” We’ll ignore the fact that Steorn’s wads of cash comes from our pockets just for the sheer entertainment of saying, “Gotcha!”

In the end, I think that in our hearts we all hope Steorn really does have something to offer – it would be the solution to so many problems. Even if Orbo-powered generators were available tomorrow, there’s no chance of stopping global warming and very little chance of even noticeably mitigating it. But it gives us a chance at surviving the coming years without making matters worse.

Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun May 06, 2007 8:55 pm PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

Great post, WaBoy! A thoughtful set of comments. Just a minor point though--while I know what you mean, strictly speaking the matter-to-energy conversions that you mention don't really do that--rather, they are utilising (or liberating) some of the energy stored in high-energy molecular bonds by converting them to lower-energy bonds. True, this bond energy difference does have a mass equivalent (given by m=E/c**2) but it is hardly measureable as such. The conversion of matter to energy only really occurs to a measurable degree in nuclear reactions, where measurable mass is converted to radiation of various kinds and kinetic energy (heat).

Now, the Reality Show issue: Seriously, most people on the threads I read seem to believe one of two things: either that Steorn have what they claim, or that they are trying to perpetrate a fraud. Myself, I am leaning more and more to the somewhat-neglected third alternative, that they are simply (or complexly!) making one or more mistakes somewhere along the line--they may honestly believe that they have what they claim, so no conscious fraud is intended, but rather are making the usual sorts of errors that plague experimenters in this arena.

I do find the backpedaling on demo dates and release of "detailed technical specifications" to be quite disheartening, though. It reminds me of DePalma's or Tewari's work on various homopolar motor variants--"We know, by extrapolating from data that we are quite certain of and that are quite replicable, that just going a bit faster, or using stronger fields, or reducing friction just a bit more, that we will cross the break-even point soon." But no matter how much effort (read money) is expended, that break-even point remains just out of reach--so demos are postponed, etc. Eventually even the experimenters are convinced (privately) that the break-even point cannot be attained, but to save face, and insure continued funding, they may cross the line into conscious fraud.

I recall a face-to-face conversation I had with a well-known Japanese magnetic motor inventor (with patents, demo models and everything)--he had claimed that he had a self-running magnetic motor system, but didn't bring that one to us for demonstration (even though he had promised to do so when we bought his plane tickets). He did however have with him several other systems that he claimed output more power than input. We asked him, "Well, why don't you just hook up the output to the input of this machine and let it run itself, then?" The inventor replied, quite earnestly I thought, "That would be playing God, and it would be wrong to do that." We subsequently were able to show, using his own instrumentation and his own data and a standard electrical engineering textbook, that he was doing the power calculations incorrectly--a typical sophomore EE mistake. Another one of his machines incorporated a beautifully-machined 40-kg brass flywheel--it could indeed be disconnected from its input power source and would still produce output sufficient to "run itself"--for a while--until the flywheel slowed down--he simply didn't appreciate (and didn't know how to calculate) how much energy could be stored in the rotational inertia of such a large mass.
But his faith wasn't shaken by our "incompetent" evaluation, nor was that of his corps of true believers--he still can be found on the web, and is still cited by people like Gaby De Wilde as having working PMM designs.
Too bad it isn't true.

Like you, WaBoy (and many others I'm sure) I hope sincerely that Steorn, or somebody, somewhere, anywhere, do indeed come up with a "free energy" device that violates CofE. It would be a scientific discovery of unimaginable magnitude and would force the reformulation of physics, in addition to completely reshaping the World-as-we-know-it.
Still, I'm not going to hold my breath.
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon May 07, 2007 6:52 am PostPost subject:
WaBoy
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 34
Location: Pacific NW - US/Canada

Reply with quote

Picky, picky. But, of course, you’re absolutely right. Very Happy

You brought up the idea of a third alternative: “Myself, I am leaning more and more to the somewhat-neglected third alternative… they may honestly believe that they have what they claim, so no conscious fraud is intended, but rather are making the usual sorts of errors that plague experimenters in this arena.”

If a clever con artist takes me in and I lose money, I can go to court and attempt to regain my loss. I can console myself by saying the con artist outsmarted me. If the person really has something, I can share in the discovery in some small part and congratulate myself on hooking up with someone smarter than I. However, if someone makes a dumb mistake and I’m still taken in, I’ll avoid admitting I’ve been made the fool by someone less intelligent than I am. No one cares to admit being made the fool by someone even more foolish, especially to himself. Embarassed

That might be the reason the third alternative is not often spoken aloud.

So far, Steorn has exhibited all the activities of a classic con: the “Grand Announcement;” the claim of a scientific breakthrough; claims that the “scientific establishment” refuses to acknowledge the breakthrough; claims of the “se-lection of qualified scientists” who will verify the breakthrough; claims to publicly provide scientific specifications; then the refusal to name the “selected scientists;” and, in April, refusal to publish the promised specifications.

There have been a number of posts claiming that Steorn has accepted upwards of £10M in the form of “investments” from various (and mostly unnamed) sources, including their attorneys. There’s the capital.

In about ten weeks (the end of July, 2007) is the big announcement – although what exactly is to be announced seems somewhat slippery. My understanding is that the scientists will announce their names and CVs and there will be a demonstration of the Orbo product. There may also be the distribution of Orbo-like toys or small demonstration models.

Like you, I’m not holding my breath.

In the meantime, I’ll go back to the inventions topic and play with some claims, guesses (WAGs and SWAGs) and probable/improbable applications. How about an electric motorcycle or target practice with a coil gun? Care to join me?

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” Mark Twain
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon May 07, 2007 8:31 am PostPost subject:
exco
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 190

Reply with quote

My guess is that he knows it's all nonsense. Lets be generous and say that he started by believing it, and and genuinely thought he had something wonderful.

But the flaky answers to questions, numerous inconsistencies, cancelled 'demonstrations' and many many scientific solecisms - "I think we'll see a redefinition of what energy is..." Sheesh! led me to believe that he is now simply attempting to extend the show as long as he can in order to continue trousering a no doubt very generous salary.

It would be hard to pin down exactly when he ceased to believe in it, and therefore it would be hard to say at what point it ceased to be a genuine business venture and became a scam. Nobody - particularly big wealthy investors - like to be seen to be the victims of what will - in retrospect - seem like a transparent hoax. My bet is that the company will be wound up, and the leprachaun will walk away - possibly with finishing bonus. The investors will swallow hard, claw back what they can, and avoid perpetual motion machines from then on.

The denizens of the steorn forum and the spud club will go into denial and invent conspiracy theories about it having been 'suppressed by the big oil companies' or something, and everything will go on as before.

For my part, I'll be quite sorry to see it all come to an end. It's been fun enjoying the lunacy, but it was always only a bit of fun.

No more heating or fuel bills seems like a good thing at first, but infinite energy for everyman - on reflection - could be disastrous if you think of the possibilities for war, terrorism or deranged hobbyists. Just as well the laws of physics cannot be waived - even for lerachauns.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon May 07, 2007 8:27 pm PostPost subject:
WaBoy
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 34
Location: Pacific NW - US/Canada

Reply with quote

@exco:

You said:
“…seems like a good thing at first, but infinite energy for everyman – on reflection – could be disastrous if you think of the possibilities for war, terrorism or deranged hobbyists. Just as well the laws of physics cannot be waived…”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the same or similar sentiments were expressed when electricity was to be delivered to various towns from the Niagara Power project and again from the first nuclear power plants. The complaint was that anyone could have access to cheap electricity and who knew what the “anarchists” or “communists” might do with it? Today the word is, “terrorist,” but I think I like “deranged hobbyist” best of all.

What Steorn claims to offer isn’t electrical power, but mechanical power – even though it’s couched in electrical terms: .5 watt per cm^3. Converting to horsepower is simply multiplying each kilowatt by 1.340482574. In its recently released "Technical Specification," Steorn claimed to be “finalizing the development of constant motion systems” and “a significant improvement in power density is anticipated.” (That’s too funny for words. How long did it take – 10 minutes or fifteen?) But let’s let that dog lie where it is.

What they claim is a 40 hp motor in a 60,000 cm^3 volume. That’s a cube 39.15 cm on a side (15.42 inches) with a turning shaft sticking out producing a whopping amount of torque, regardless of its speed. Gear that shaft to a generator or alternator, add a voltage selector, reserve battery, voltage regulator and output panel, and you have a great little 30 kW generator to run your house or vehicle. That’s a great deal more mechanical power than the average person imagines.

The point is: Steorn claims far more that it’s ever likely to deliver. But, as I said earlier, let’s go back to the Inventor’s Topic forum and talk about it there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon May 07, 2007 10:36 pm PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

Wow. Nice maths. That really gives us a handle on just what an amazing and unbelievable device/system Steorn are claiming--much easier to grasp than "0.5 w/cc".
Thanks for doing the calculations--I don't have the patience for it anymore.
Be seeing you--on the other thread, with a bunch of bumps and some experiments. Laughing
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue May 08, 2007 8:04 am PostPost subject:
exco
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 190

Reply with quote

Yes. Let's do some calculations on the amount of power generated.

0.5 W/cc equates to half a megawatt per cubic metre. So a largish fridge sized generator would chuck out enough heat to boil something like three quarters of a ton of water an hour. Whether it's mechanical or electrical energy make not a lot of difference - it all ends up as heat.

That's a LOT of power. Lets say every house has one of these. Let's also say that there are numerous restaurant's and pubs who decide to build even bigger generators, and heat their beer gardens or outside dining areas; it's all free so why not?

They need rather bigger machines. Probably a room-filling unit in a basement, lets say a three-metre cube. These chuck out 27 times as much heat. lets say 13 megawatts, so that even in the depths of northern scotland midwinter, the garden can be maintained at a pleasent mediterranean temperature.

Meanwhile, the transport industry is not slow to put thesae things to use. They have real monsters in order to power ships, trains, aircraft, etc. A large container ship might have a ten metre cube. This can chuck out 500 megawatts, no problem. The ship designers have decided that it is cheaper to abandon a pointed bow in the interests of packing in more containers, and go for a much less efficient brick shaped ship. Why not? the only reason for a pointed bow is to save energy, and it's now free!

Industry is busy too. There is a huge demand for steel and blast furnaces have been abandoned for electrically powered ones. They need devices even bigger, lets say a thirty metre cube. This produces thirteen Gigawatts of heat, all of which is chucked into the environment.

Already, large cities have a significant effect on the climate due to the heat they throw away. When you have to pay gas and elecricity bills, as now, you have to be careful about insulation, but if it's all free, why bother. At the moment we worry about global warming due to CO2 from burnt fossil fuel, but were this thing to work, the heating would be directly due to us, and I don't see this being easily throttled back either.

Can you make a bomb out of these things? I really don't know, but with this sort of energy knocking about for nothing, it's not to hard to imagine people putting the power to work to make powerful explosives from freely available materials. Basically, it's just a matter of chemistry and power. The whole concept of 'banned substances' would be a nonsense.

As for the military, it would be like christmas! Any country would be able to bash out autonomous drone aircraft or bombs with no limit on their flight times. You could make mobile submarine mines in their thousands capable of being released thousands of miles from their target city (most cities are on the coast) and of finding their way there using the same technology as cruise missiles.

There are even more horrible possibilities which I don't propose to go into, but I am quite convinced that it is a bloody good thing that this stuff is the nonsense it clearly is. Only someone with limited imagination, or optimism bordering on lunacy could see it as 100% good for us all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue May 08, 2007 11:00 pm PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

Which brings us back around to the Number 1 logical proof that Sean & co. do not have what they claim: They are still alive.
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri May 11, 2007 6:06 am PostPost subject:
WaBoy
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 34
Location: Pacific NW - US/Canada

Reply with quote

@exco:

Wow! That's some calculating! Aren't you the guy who just claimed that heat isn't energy? Is your new claim that ALL energy becomes heat?

You said, "Whether it's mechanical or electrical energy make not a lot of difference - it all ends up as heat." Oh? Really? By what method did you arrive at this conclusion? Is there a reference to which you can point me?

You said, "Only someone with limited imagination, or optimism bordering on lunacy could see it as 100% good for us all." Does that mean that only wildly imaginative pessimists can see clearly?

I suggest you rethink your assumptions, tone down your rhetoric and check your math. Rolling Eyes

@alsetalokin:

C'mon... piling on? This is the guy that told YOU heat wasn't energy. Remember your reply? Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri May 11, 2007 9:09 pm PostPost subject:
exco
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 190

Reply with quote

Yes, I am the guy who says heat and energy are not the same. Not that I'm alone. Any competent physicist or engineer will say the same thing.

"You said, "Whether it's mechanical or electrical energy make not a lot of difference - it all ends up as heat." Oh? Really? By what method did you arrive at this conclusion? Is there a reference to which you can point me? "

Certainly. Any simple physics text book will do. A guy called Joule (a brewer by trade) took the trouble to measure how much heat you get from a given amount of energy. The answer he got is about 4.2 Joules per calory. For your information a Joule is one watt running for a second, and a calory is the quantity of heat required to raise one gram (or one cubic centimetre) of water by one degree centigrade.

Why does it all end up as heat? Well because of losses. In the mechanical case friction (which is inevitable) generates heat, and in the electrical case due to resistance losses. In both cases, however, Joules's measurement holds. 4.2 Joules results in 1 calory irresprective of whether the Joules come from mechanical or electrical sources.

"You said, "Only someone with limited imagination, or optimism bordering on lunacy could see it as 100% good for us all." Does that mean that only wildly imaginative pessimists can see clearly? "

No of course not. Your logic is at fault. You are extrapolating the particular case (belief that orbo is 100% good) to the general (only imaginative pessimists can see clearly)

What I thought I had made abundantly clear was that there are very serious dangers in everyman and his dog having access to infinite power, and an inability to see this either means you lack imagination or you are so optimistic that you have chosen to ignore such thoughts - a crazy strategy I think you'll agree.

And I've checked my assumptions and my maths and all is well. I suggest you do the same. You will note I've no intention of abandoning my rhetoric however.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri May 11, 2007 10:41 pm PostPost subject:
WaBoy
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 34
Location: Pacific NW - US/Canada

Reply with quote

There are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both ways save us from thinking.” Alfred Korzybski

My intent was to poke a little gentle – and not so gentle – fun at Steorn. Your intent seems to run in, blast away at everything without regard to weapon or target, and without a whit of subtlety. That might work with FPS games, but not so well with real people. You’re about as subtle as a mudslide. Let’s do a little deconstruction so that next time you can use a rapier instead of a club.

You said:
Quote:
0.5 W/cc equates to half a megawatt per cubic metre. So a largish fridge sized generator would chuck out enough heat to boil something like three quarters of a ton of water an hour. Whether it's mechanical or electrical energy make not a lot of difference - it all ends up as heat
That's a LOT of power. Lets say every house has one of these. Let's also say that there are numerous restaurant's and pubs who decide to build even bigger generators, and heat their beer gardens or outside dining areas; it's all free so why not?.

First you point out an oversized unit (500,000 Watts), claim “That’s a LOT of power” and make the general statement, “Lets[sic] say every house has one of these.” Why would every house want or need a 500 kW generator? How much do you think a unit that size would cost? Even the Americans you apparently abhor use just a bit over 30 kWh per day on average. You continue on with “numerous restaurant's[sic] and pubs who decide to build even bigger generators.” Why would any business owner do that? You conclude with, “…it’s all free so why not?” (You need to sort out plural and possessive usage.)

Why do you even begin to believe that an Orbo generator would be free? Like anything else, it takes time, materials and labor to manufacture goods for distribution. The bigger the generator, the higher the price; that’s pretty standard and likely to keep average households and businesses from buying more than they need.

The other premise, “Whether it's mechanical or electrical energy make not[sic] a lot of difference - it all ends up as heat,” is equally false. You truly need to educate yourself in basic physics, because I refuse to take on that particular project.

Both of your initial premises are dead wrong, but you careen onward, torpedoes and common sense be damned.
Quote:
Meanwhile, the transport industry is not slow to put thesae things to use. They have real monsters in order to power ships, trains, aircraft, etc. A large container ship might have a ten metre cube. This can chuck out 500 megawatts, no problem. The ship designers have decided that it is cheaper to abandon a pointed bow in the interests of packing in more containers, and go for a much less efficient brick shaped ship. Why not? the only reason for a pointed bow is to save energy, and it's now free!

Dear God... The diesel trains you see go by? They're diesel/electric, unless you're still running coal-and-steam trains in your neighborhood. Hull design for container ships is for speed, not efficiency; time is money, banannas ripen quickly, lettuce wilts. Cost of transportation is added to the end price. You want to put a hulking big Orbo on a plane? Why?
Quote:
Industry is busy too. There is a huge demand for steel and blast furnaces have been abandoned for electrically powered ones. They need devices even bigger, lets say a thirty metre cube. This produces thirteen Gigawatts of heat, all of which is chucked into the environment.

Sweet Jesus! Basic steelmaking seems beyond your educational reach as well. How in hell do you think they make steel, charcoal and a big hammer?
Quote:
Already, large cities have a significant effect on the climate due to the heat they throw away. When you have to pay gas and elecricity bills, as now, you have to be careful about insulation, but if it's all free, why bother. At the moment we worry about global warming due to CO2 from burnt fossil fuel, but were this thing to work, the heating would be directly due to us, and I don't see this being easily throttled back either.

Does the phrase “radiant energy” mean anything to you? Let’s hope so, because without it, Earth would still be a molten blob circling the sun. Planetary heat radiates into space. Carbon dioxide acts like the glass in a greenhouse: it traps heat (prevents radiation). Are you getting the picture yet?
Quote:
Can you make a bomb out of these things? I really don't know, but with this sort of energy knocking about for nothing, it's not to hard to imagine people putting the power to work to make powerful explosives from freely available materials. Basically, it's just a matter of chemistry and power. The whole concept of 'banned substances' would be a nonsense.

Your lack of education knows no bounds. Sure you can make a bomb – put a big handful of magnets in a can and shake them really, really hard! Freely available materials? How about crystal drain cleaner and ammonia? You bet it’s a matter of chemistry and power… of education. As for banned substances – what have you been smoking?
Quote:
As for the military, it would be like christmas! Any country would be able to bash out autonomous drone aircraft or bombs with no limit on their flight times. You could make mobile submarine mines in their thousands capable of being released thousands of miles from their target city (most cities are on the coast) and of finding their way there using the same technology as cruise missiles.

Your military theory seems to be based on some poorly designed computer games. What’s the difference between an “autonomous drone aircraft” and a cruise missile other than speed and explosive capability? Mines, by definition, aren’t mobile.
Quote:
There are even more horrible possibilities which I don't propose to go into, but I am quite convinced that it is a bloody good thing that this stuff is the nonsense it clearly is. Only someone with limited imagination, or optimism bordering on lunacy could see it as 100% good for us all.

I don’t even want to consider the “horrible possibilities” your imagination can provide under the influence of the nonsensical “banned substances” you mentioned.

OF COURSE IT’S NONSENSE! CAN’T YOU READ?

Oh, and thanks for the “imperial” system of weights and measures dropped on North America by you Brits. As you just admitted, you still can’t make up your own minds. So quit pissing and moaning.

There’s an old British saying that goes: When engaging in a battle of wits, it is best not to attend half armed. Keep it in mind.


Last edited by WaBoy on Sat May 12, 2007 2:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat May 12, 2007 10:15 am PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

Hi WaBoy!
Sic 'em!
We must be on a different planet than exco. Either that or there are two different people posting as exco, sometimes in the same post.

Most of the rest of this is for exco's benefit.

Every solid reference that I have checked, from freshman high school "science" books up thru graduate level thermodynamics texts, plus dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. say, in one way or another, that heat is a form of energy. The more advanced texts which treat heat engines say that work is performed on the working fluid by virtue of the difference in heat crossing the input boundary and the heat crossing the output boundary of the system (the engine); the latter must be less than the former, and the difference is the work. In fact that is how the work is calculated. To quote Van Nostrand's 5th ed. again, "If Q1 is the positive amount of heat energy absorbed by the system, Q2 is the positive amount of heat energy rejected by the system and W the net amount of work done by the system, then the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) gives W=Q1-Q2. The efficiency of the engine is defined as
efficiency=W/Q1=(1-(Q2/Q1)) "
and further, "A thermodynamic engine run backwards becomes a _refrigerator_. Thus a positive amount of heat Q2 is absorbed at a low temperature, work W is done, and positive heat Q1 is rejected at a higher temperature. The first law now gives Q1=W+Q2. The ratio Q2/W is known as the _coefficient of performance_ of the refrigerator." (VN, 5th ed. p 1246.)
Work is measured in Joules, and so is heat. The Joule is defined as "the work done by 1 Newton acting through a distance of 1 Meter."
1 joule equals 1 watt-second, or 10e7 ergs, or 10e7 dyne-cm.

exco is correct that it was Joule who quantified the heating of water by the application of a certain amount of stirring, i.e. kinetic energy. But as you and I have pointed out, he is wrong about some other things.

Sure I remember my earlier reply--the "piling on" that you mention was very much tongue-in-cheek. I guess my sense of humor is a little strange (absurd, dada-ish at times).

Somehow it seems contradictory that exco can say:

"Yes, I am the guy who says heat and energy are not the same. Not that I'm alone. Any competent physicist or engineer will say the same thing."

and also this:

"A guy called Joule (a brewer by trade) took the trouble to measure how much heat you get from a given amount of energy. The answer he got is about 4.2 Joules per calory. For your information a Joule is one watt running for a second, and a calory is the quantity of heat required to raise one gram (or one cubic centimetre) of water by one degree centigrade."

in the same post.

And it's just silly to claim that Joule "got" 4.2 Joules per calorie. The Joule wasn't named as a unit of energy until much later; Joule's data was in the form of the original definition: Units of force acting over units of distance, to produce an acceleration in the mean velocity of the molecules in a quantity of water (measured by an increase in temperature). That is, the kinetic energy driving his stirrer was transferred to the kinetic energy of the molecules of the water. Heat is energy! They are ultimately measured in the same units! 1 Joule = 1 watt-second is a conversion factor, not a definition!

exco, please cite one reputable source that says that heat is not energy.
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat May 12, 2007 11:31 am PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

@exco:
And as for the common claim that "temperature" is a measure of the heat content of a substance: What about this? I have a given quantity of a substance at, say, 57 degrees C. I add some heat (by, say, running some electric current thru a resistor--say 10 amps thru a 1-ohm resistor, so the power, by (I^2)R, is 100 watts, and I do this for 10 seconds), so I am adding 100 watt-seconds, or 100 Joules, or about 24 calories of heat. Right so far? Then by the common definition of temperature, my substance must get hotter, that is, the thermometer must read something greater than 57 degrees, depending on the substance's specific heat, as defined by you. Right?
Wrong.
Other properties of the substance can change instead of the temperature--for example the volume of a gas, or the dimensions of a solid. Even the specific heat can change! I can add energy in the form of heat to, say, a balloon full of helium; its volume can expand, so that it remains at the same temperature, but occupies more space, yet the quantity of matter remains the same, the temperature remains the same, but the heat (energy!) content has increased. Temperature is not a measure of heat content!
Or I can take an insulated flexible ballon containing some gas at a particular temperature, and raise it up through the atmosphere to a higher altitude, without allowing any heat to cross the balloon's skin. The balloon will expand to maintain pressure equilibrium with the outside air pressure, and the gas inside will become cooler, measured by a thermometer monitoring the temperature. The amount of matter in the balloon has not changed, neither has the heat content, but the temperature has dropped--because the volume has increased. Bring the balloon back down, it contracts due to maintaining pressure equilibrium, so it gets warmer. But the heat content is the same. Can you say "adiabatic"?
Temperature is not a measure of heat content! Temperature, pressure, volume, quantity of matter, all are related. I can take a bucket of water at 50 degrees C and pour it into an insulated barrel. This contains a certain amount of heat, yes?. I can add another bucket of water at 50 degrees C. Now I have twice as much heat, but the temperature is still 50 degrees. Temperature is not a measure of heat content!
This illustrates why the thermodynamics texts, in their precise definitions of heat, say that a substance does not "contain" heat, but heat can only be measured as it crosses a system boundary. Our use of the phrase "heat content", or speaking about a substance containing heat, is a colloquialism, not precise scientific speech. You can call it "nonsense" if you want; all that means is that it doesn't make sense to _you_.
As someone once said--"Go learn."
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat May 12, 2007 3:05 pm PostPost subject:
WaBoy
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 34
Location: Pacific NW - US/Canada

Reply with quote

@alsetalokin:

Sorry, Niko. It was a childish response to a childish taunt - something I should have outgrown 50 years ago. Thanks for your effort concerning the heat/energy transfer information, but it may be wasted. Let's hope not.

@exco:

My apologies, but please try to stay on topic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat May 12, 2007 3:20 pm PostPost subject:
exco
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 190

Reply with quote

alsetalokin

Stop being disingenuous!

You might as well say I am wrong because when I turned my back someone sneaked in and chucked a load of ice cubes into the apparatus.

Yes, you could have some trick substance, althought I don't believe you can find one where adding energy actually causes a reduction in temperature. Even your balloon of helium will not expand unless and until it gets hotter, so yes, the temperature as measured by my thermometer WILL be higher than 57C after you have added energy. If you have anything that gets cooler tha more you heat it, - all other things being equal - then I'd certainly like to see it. You have invented perpetual motion yourself!

As to bringing in the expansion of gases, you are now introducing an unecessary variable to the argument in an attempt to prove me wrong. If you want to use a gas, then it must be in a container of fixed volume. But allowing it to expand, you are effectively allowing refrigeration to occur. As we both know, the specific heat of gasses varies widely with its volume/density.

And stop lecturing me on the difference in heat and temperature. I KNOW the difference, honestly I do, and barrels of water at 50C are singularly unilluminating therefore.

As to heat being energy, try this. You are in a room at 20C. Everything in it contains heat - it is all well above absolute zero, so you have tons of energy to play with.

Now try extracting some of that energy and passing it out of the room, say as an electrical current into an external load. If you say heat is energy, then this should result in the remperature of the room falling, right?

I claim that you will be unable to extract any energy whatsoever. There is tons of heat there but no available energy. If you claim this is possible, please let me have the details. I would appreciate it if no leprachauns or 'orbos' were involved in the explanation. I don't believe in either.

The point is that heat may be a form of energy, but they are NOT the same thing.

I think your logic is akin to "All birds have feathers. Cushions have feathers, Therefore cushions are birds"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat May 12, 2007 7:59 pm PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

Ah, so many refutations, so little time.

Endothermic chemical reactions. Pour some water at 20 C on some sodium hypochlorite crystals, also at 20 C. The solution becomes cold, the room gets cooler.
Of course you probably won't let me have any "hypo" or water in the room.
Note that this is _not_ claimed to violate CofE in any way, it just illustrates that, once again, heat is a form of energy that can be converted to another form of energy that cannot be measured as heat.

There are other ways too, but why bother.

If you want to argue logic, I can do that too. You are resorting to "straw man" arguments, as well as "special pleading." And your syllogism incorrectly describes my argument. If I were claiming "energy is a form of heat" you might be right. But the contention (mine, as well as all those other sources I can cite) is that "heat is a form of energy."
Feathers grow only on birds. Some feathers can be found in cushions. Conclusion: Feathered cushions require the existence of birds.
I could draw you a Venn diagram of the situation, but I already know it wouldn't do any good.
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Skeptics, sceptics, and Cynics
View previous topic
View next topic
Display posts from previous:   




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum