super conductors ,related question

[johannesbender]

from Wikipedia at http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity

Superconductivity is a phenomenon of
exactly zero electrical resistance and
expulsion of magnetic fields occurring in
certain materials when cooled below a
characteristic critical temperature . It was
discovered by Dutch physicist Heike
Kamerlingh Onnes on April 8, 1911 in
Leiden. Like ferromagnetism and atomic
spectral lines , superconductivity is a
quantum mechanical phenomenon. It is
characterized by the Meissner effect, the
complete ejection of magnetic field lines
from the interior of the superconductor as
it transitions into the superconducting
state. The occurrence of the Meissner
effect indicates that superconductivity
cannot be understood simply as the
idealization of perfect conductivity in
classical physics .
The electrical resistivity of a metallic
conductor decreases gradually as
temperature is lowered. In ordinary
conductors , such as copper or silver , this
decrease is limited by impurities and other
defects. Even near absolute zero , a real
sample of a normal conductor shows
some resistance. In a superconductor, the
resistance drops abruptly to zero when the
material is cooled below its critical
temperature. An electric current flowing
through a loop of superconducting wire
can persist indefinitely with no power
source.

...
and further :

Superconductors are also able to maintain
a current with no applied voltage
whatsoever, a property exploited in
superconducting electromagnets such as
those found in MRI machines. Experiments
have demonstrated that currents in
superconducting coils can persist for years
without any measurable degradation.
Experimental evidence points to a current
lifetime of at least 100,000 years.
Theoretical estimates for the lifetime of a
persistent current can exceed the
estimated lifetime of the universe ,
depending on the wire geometry and the
temperature. [3]
In a normal conductor, an electric current
may be visualized as a fluid of electrons
moving across a heavy ionic lattice. The
electrons are constantly colliding with the
ions in the lattice, and during each
collision some of the energy carried by the
current is absorbed by the lattice and
converted into heat, which is essentially
the vibrational kinetic energy of the lattice
ions. As a result, the energy carried by the
current is constantly being dissipated. This
is the phenomenon of electrical resistance.
The situation is different in a
superconductor. In a conventional
superconductor, the electronic fluid cannot
be resolved into individual electrons.
Instead, it consists of bound pairs of
electrons known as Cooper pairs. This
pairing is caused by an attractive force
between electrons from the exchange of
phonons. Due to quantum mechanics , the
energy spectrum of this Cooper pair fluid
possesses an energy gap , meaning there
is a minimum amount of energy ΔE that
must be supplied in order to excite the
fluid. Therefore, if Δ E is larger than the
thermal energy of the lattice, given by kT ,
where k is Boltzmann's constant and T is
the temperature , the fluid will not be
scattered by the lattice. The Cooper pair
fluid is thus a superfluid , meaning it can
flow without energy dissipation.


...

can we say that the prevention of ,heat , by constant cooling and bringing resistance down to zero , prevents energy loss because energy cannot transform in to heat , and that this
principle of prevention of energy loss ,can be in some manner be done mechanical too ?

stop energy from changing state ?

"Energy can be neither created nor be
destroyed, but it can change form"

if we allow it to change form , we lose !


jb

[MrVibrating]

This is perpetual motion due to the absence of entropic losses - not to be confused with energy creation as by an asymmetric interaction, which is the one and only thing we should be concerned with.

If we had a passive superconducting ring with a nice current circulating inside, it'd also be a permanent magnet. Likewise, the magnetic field of a permanent magnet is caused by the lossless currents of its consitituent unpaired electron's orbital moments.

We can't apply a load to these 'quantum currents' in a permanet magnet (asymmetric magnetic interactions must utilise alternative strategies), however we COULD apply a load to the current in our superconducting ring. But upon doing so, we'd quickly destroy the current. The ring would output precisely the amount of work that was input to set the current in motion, and drained out, it would then be exhausted.

A typical load might be a small incandescent light bulb - however this produces light caused by heat due to resistance. Or we could apply a small electric motor; but again, this would convert the current to rotational KE of the rotor and heat in the coils, quickly draining it. In fact, any electrical load that does any work at all - even if that's just the latent resitance of its wiring - will destroy the current.

If we could attach a superconducting heater, say, it wouldn't produce any heat, because heat is produced by resistance (Joule's 2nd law). If we attached a superconducting motor, it would produce any torque, both for the same reason the superconducting heater wouldn't heat, and also because of Lenz's law, which says that any motion produced by a magnetic field induces a counter-force upon that field which is equal and opposite to the motive force applied to the rotor - basically, Newton's 3rd law, manifested in an electrical circuit instead.

So nope, a passive superconducting circuit is like a flywheel spinning in space. Gravity waves etc. notwithstanding, it'll continue forever, but as soon as we apply a load, we convert that conserved momentum into some other form of energy, with no excess left over.

Worse, we don't yet have passive superconductivity - it costs lots of energy to super-cool the components, and although we're near the break-even point for limited commercial applications, cost-free (passive) superconductivity still seems a long way off. There's one or two mavericks making non-peer-reviewed claims, such as here:

http://www.superconductors.org/400K_SC.htm


..but i doubt we'll see such results validated within the next five years or so.

So, long story short, a mechanical version of this is just a low-friction flywheel. Even a zero-friction one wouldn't be any use for energy production - might be useful as an attitude controller gyro for satellites or navigations systems, but that's about it.

What we need is asymmetric interactions - that is, a force interaction (any force you like) with an input displacement, and an equal output displacement (so same distances in and out), but with a free variation in the force magnitude inbetween. So lift something when it's heavy, drop it when it's light, type stuff.. This is the only way to get useable excess energy.

[jim_mich]

So lift something when it's heavy, drop it when it's light, type stuff..

Make a weight weigh one pound as it rises and weigh four pounds as it falls. Exactly according to Bessler's taunt toward Wagner. Unfortunately gravity is constant. A weight weighs the same when it falls as when it is raised back upward. It is impossible for any object to weigh more as it falls and less as it rises. Bessler knew this. Wagner knew this. Science knows this. Most people today know this. This is the reason WHY perpetual motion by means of gravity is impossible.

Paraphrasing Sherlock Holmes: Eliminated the impossible, what remains, must be truth.

Bessler said his wheel was rotated by weights, but he NEVER said it was rotated by gravity acting upon the weights. Bessler's said his wheel was rotated by forces caused by the motions of its weights.

[Allen_T]

johannesbender,

>> can we say that the prevention of ,heat , by constant cooling and bringing resistance down to zero , prevents energy loss <<

I am not sure if you are familiar with high speed mag-lev trains. They use super conductive magnets which I think are cooled by nitrogen.
The energy loss they "suffer" is the result of work.

@jim_mich,
>> It is impossible for any object to weigh more as it falls and less as it rises. Bessler knew this. Wagner knew this. Science knows this. Most people today know this. This is the reason WHY perpetual motion by means of gravity is impossible. <<

And you have 5 green dots in a Bessler wheel forum ? After all, Wagner called Bessler a fraud. No wonder this forum died.

[jim_mich]

@jim_mich,
-snip-
And you have 5 green dots in a Bessler wheel forum ? After all, Wagner called Bessler a fraud. No wonder this forum died.

And what exactly is it that you are implying about me? Yes, Wagner called Bessler a fraud. Are you implying that I'm calling Bessler a fraud?

[Allen_T]

Considering the question was about super conductivity and you respond with Wagner. Some would call that a Freudian Slip.

A Freudian slip is a verbal or memory mistake that is believed to be linked to the unconscious mind.
According to Freud, these errors reveal an unconscious thought, belief or wish.
http://psychology.about.com/od/sigmundf ... n-slip.htm

Actually Jim_Mich, as AB Hammer said, I don't belong here. He is right.

[jim_mich]

Considering the question was about super conductivity and you respond with Wagner. Some would call that a Freudian Slip.

No, what I wrote was NOT a Freudian slip.

From your link concerning a Freudian slip...

A Freudian slip is a verbal or memory mistake that is believed to be linked to the unconscious mind. Common examples include an individual calling his or her spouse by an ex's name, saying the wrong word or even misinterpreting a written or spoken word.

Why must I always have to go back and explain things to people?

can we say that the prevention of ,heat , by constant cooling and bringing resistance down to zero , prevents energy loss because energy cannot transform in to heat , and that this
principle of prevention of energy loss ,can be in some manner be done mechanical too ?

stop energy from changing state ?

"Energy can be neither created nor be
destroyed, but it can change form"

if we allow it to change form , we lose !

The question did not concern superconductivity. It was only related to superconductivity. The question concerned energy changing form.

Then Mr.V brought up a good point...

What we need is asymmetric interactions - that is, a force interaction (any force you like) with an input displacement, and an equal output displacement (so same distances in and out), but with a free variation in the force magnitude inbetween. So lift something when it's heavy, drop it when it's light, type stuff.. This is the only way to get useable excess energy.

So now we get to the topic of motion and force. To which I addressed my reply!

Note that for any force to do any work, the force MUST be stronger in one direction than in the reset direction. And gravity can't supply such asymmetric force.

Then you, Jim Lindgaard, started bashing me.
Exactly why, I don't know.

Actually Jim_Mich, as AB Hammer said, I don't belong here. He is right

At least we agree on something.

[johannesbender]

good explanations , I see now , preventing the loss of energy through friction or sound or such ,is not the answer , on the contrary Bessler seem to have had so much energy in the drum ,that fighting losses didn't seem THAT high a priority at that time , im thinking of the sound heard for instance .

so basically , there were so much force there ,that the wheel would not stop untill the equivalent force were to be applied as work , so perpetual as long as the energy extracted did not deplete the device of the amount it was designed to handle ,but not perpetual when the designed operating force where exceeded by work ?

that sounds like the design was really restricted to specific principles ,and just finding it would be one in a million by chance , we know size had to be one of the design's directly related variables ,well that's one clue .

[Grimer]

So lift something when it's heavy, drop it when it's light, type stuff..

Make a weight weigh one pound as it rises and weigh four pounds as it falls. Exactly according to Bessler's taunt toward Wagner. Unfortunately gravity is constant. A weight weighs the same when it falls as when it is raised back upward. It is impossible for any object to weigh more as it falls and less as it rises. Bessler knew this. Wagner knew this. Science knows this. Most people today know this. This is the reason WHY perpetual motion by means of gravity is impossible.

Paraphrasing Sherlock Holmes: Eliminated the impossible, what remains, must be truth.

Bessler said his wheel was rotated by weights, but he NEVER said it was rotated by gravity acting upon the weights. Bessler's said his wheel was rotated by forces caused by the motions of its weights.

Quite so.
In a swinging pendulum Newtonian Gravity (NG) induces Ersatz Gravity (EG)
as the pendulum bob swings though 6 o'clock.

Speaking from memory for an a swing of 120° the downward pull on the pivot is doubled. Thus if the pivot is pulled down by the combined force the work done (force times vertical distance moved) is doubled.

The NG contribution to this work has to be paid back but the EG contribution doesn't. The EG contribution is more than enough to allow for pendulum losses and have a large amount left over.

All that's required is a bit of imagination on how to do this. Thanks to Cloud's ideas on his "clock" thread I think I can see how to manage it by breaking the process into discrete lumps. Perhaps Leibniz was inspired to invent the calculus by his knowledge of escapement mechanisms. If my idea works out I'll be posting it on Cloud's thread.

To summarize then, the NG gravitational potential is unchanged at the end of a cycle. All the energy comes from EG. NG simply acts as a catalyst.

So when you say: "A weight weighs the same when it falls as when it is raised back upward. It is impossible for any object to weigh more as it falls and less as it rises. Bessler knew this. Wagner knew this. Science knows this. Most people today know this" you are correct.

But when you say, "This is the reason WHY perpetual motion by means of gravity is impossible." you are wrong.

Catalysts allow changes to occur without themselves being permanently changed.

In 2002 I was given a book to review entitled:
How chemical bonds form and chemical reactions proceed
by Victor and Yuriy Gankin

I've always remembered their penetrating discussion of catalysis.

[jim_mich]

A catalyst would be the initial OOB of the one-way wheel or the hand push rotational start of the two-way wheel. In other words, the catalyst is simple the rotating environment whereby centrifugal forces are present.

And please, let us use the CORRECT scientific terminology for such forces, rather than calling centrifugal force (CF) as ersatz gravity (EG).

There is no evidence that gravity played ANY part in the rotation of the TWO-WAY wheels. The two-way wheels were balanced when at rest. They were balanced when rotated slowly. Only when rotated fast enough to produce a minimal centrifugal force did the internal weights start to move so as the be heard banging 'gently' against the wheel. Did these weight magically become gravitationally unbalanced? There is no indication that such would be true. There is MUCH higher indication that centrifugal force caused the weights to start moving. And there is little indication that Earth gravity had any part at all in rotating the wheel, since gravity CAN'T supply any extra energy to the mechanism. All the extra energy produce by the wheel MUST come from some source other than gravity.

So why seek a GRAVITY-ROTATED wheel? The solution is obviously not in trying to harness gravity. Gravity CAN'T produce a perpetually unbalanced force. The forces of gravity are symmetrical. An asymmetrical force is required to KEEP a PM wheel rotating.

[Grimer]

...
And please, let us use the CORRECT scientific terminology for such forces, rather than calling centrifugal force (CF) as ersatz gravity (EG).
...

nemo adsumentum panni rudis adsuit vestimento veteri alioquin aufert supplementum novum a veteri et maior scissura fit
et nemo mittit vinum novellum in utres veteres alioquin disrumpet vinum utres et vinum effunditur et utres peribunt sed vinum novum in utres novos mitti debet

:-)

[jim_mich]

We are not dealing with wine or wine skins. We are dealing with trying to communicate clearly and precisely. It is common for cults to develop their cult-speak, and thus outsiders often are at a loss to understand the meaning of the cult member's words. We need to stay with using common scientific words so that we are not looked at as some sort of cult.

Matthew 9:16-17 (Latin)

16 “No one sews a piece of new, unshrunk cloth on old clothes because the patch tears away the cloth and makes a worse tear. 17 No one pours new wine into old wineskins. If they did, the wineskins would burst, the wine would spill, and the wineskins would be ruined. Instead, people pour new wine into new wineskins so that both are kept safe.�

PS, for those who didn't catch on, Grimer quoted the Latin Version from the book of Matthew.

[cloud camper]

Why seek a gravity powered wheel?

Because I have already shown a gravity operated mechanism that produces
more power than all other wheels shown on the forum put together.

Since JM has only one failed CF powered wheel and a decades worth of
impassioned uneducated opinion this proves nothing.

Continually pleading that a gravity operated wheel is impossible without demonstrating how CF could power one is just a waste of bandwidth.

[eccentrically1]

And here we go again. You guys are too much.

[Allen_T]

Considering the question was about super conductivity and you respond with Wagner. Some would call that a Freudian Slip.

No, what I wrote was NOT a Freudian slip.

From your link concerning a Freudian slip...

A Freudian slip is a verbal or memory mistake that is believed to be linked to the unconscious mind. Common examples include an individual calling his or her spouse by an ex's name, saying the wrong word or even misinterpreting a written or spoken word.

Why must I always have to go back and explain things to people?

can we say that the prevention of ,heat , by constant cooling and bringing resistance down to zero , prevents energy loss because energy cannot transform in to heat , and that this
principle of prevention of energy loss ,can be in some manner be done mechanical too ?

stop energy from changing state ?

"Energy can be neither created nor be
destroyed, but it can change form"

if we allow it to change form , we lose !

The question did not concern superconductivity. It was only related to superconductivity. The question concerned energy changing form.

Then Mr.V brought up a good point...

What we need is asymmetric interactions - that is, a force interaction (any force you like) with an input displacement, and an equal output displacement (so same distances in and out), but with a free variation in the force magnitude inbetween. So lift something when it's heavy, drop it when it's light, type stuff.. This is the only way to get useable excess energy.

So now we get to the topic of motion and force. To which I addressed my reply!

Note that for any force to do any work, the force MUST be stronger in one direction than in the reset direction. And gravity can't supply such asymmetric force.

Then you, Jim Lindgaard, started bashing me.
Exactly why, I don't know.

Actually Jim_Mich, as AB Hammer said, I don't belong here. He is right

At least we agree on something.

Jim_Mich,
What you are trying ti hide is the fact that you were just discredited. Unless you can explain how inertia, what you call ersatz gravity can be super conductive, then Bessler would have needed to use gravity.
Yet you and Grimer quote Wagner who called Bessler a fraud. And I don't belong in here because I am building one of Bessler's drawings and saying I realize what his augmented problem was.
What you and grimer are doing now is talking "wheel".
After all gravity exists on Earth so artificial gravity is not needed like it is in the space station and I think they say artificial gravity instead of ersatz.
Thank you Johannes !