dennis@terak.UUCP (Dennis Kodimer) (04/23/85)
***
Since the season seems to have turned to PMM discussions, which is
really a quest for the free energy endowed to us by Mother Nature,
I propose the following air conditioner and water heater (the former
is the most useful feature of the device in Arizona) for net-think.
Construct a vessel of two ellipsoids with different diameters and
common focal points. Combine half of each ellipsoid with a spherical
surface which has one of the focii as a center. After carefully
soldering and polishing the interior so the walls reflect radiation
'perfectly', you have a device with a cross section that looks like...
/*********
/ ***
/ ****
*** ***
** ***
** **
* *
* x x *
* f1 f2 *
** **
Ellipsoid 1 ** ***
*** ***
\ ****
Spherical section \ *** Ellipsoid 2
\*********
My apologies for the graphics. Now, mount a small bulb at each focus
so that a fluid (e.g. freon, water, etc) can flow to and from the bulb
thru small pipes which enter thru the walls. In the following, we can
ignore 1) the non-perfection of the interior surface and 2) abberation
due to the fluid pipes. These become negligible by building larger
and larger vessels. (The one I use is 69 cm end to end, made of spun
and polished aluminum 6064 sheet, with copper bulbs and pipes :-)
Now, the geometry of an ellipsoid will focus all radiation from focus
f1 onto f2; all rays from f1 meet an ellipsoidal surface and are thus
sent to f2. However, not all radiation from focus f2 is focused onto
f1; the fraction which meets the spherical surface is returned to f2.
So, as time goes by (another assumption, albeit a persistent one), the
bulb at focus f2 will receive more radiation than the bulb at focus f1.
This is immediatelly put to work to heat water. And, the bulb at f1
looses energy since it does not have a balance of radiation emitted
versus received. We compensate for this by heating the bulb from our
living room air. Evacuating the vessel will increase efficiency.
Now, as we sip our hot tea and take in a cool breeze wafting our way
for free, can someone devise why this device works (or doesn't it?).
(:-) Larger commercial versions could generate electricity, aluminum,
conundrums, etc. One can add a mechanism to defocus the device to
reduce the energy flow, lest it melt down and/or freeze up (:-(.
--
Sincerely, *----*
/ / \
Dennis Kodimer / /still waiting for the
*----* electrician or someone
\ \just like him (or her).
\ \ /
*----*
uucp: ...{decvax,hao,ihnp4,seismo}!noao!terak!dennis
phone: 602 998 4800
us mail: Terak Corporation, 14151 N 76th street, Scottsdale, AZ 85260josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (04/25/85)
In article <517@terak.UUCP> dennis@terak.UUCP (Dennis Kodimer) writes: >*** >... > >Construct a vessel of two ellipsoids with different diameters and >common focal points. Combine half of each ellipsoid with a spherical >surface which has one of the focii as a center. > [all the radiation from f1 is] >sent to f2. However, not all radiation from focus f2 is focused onto >f1; the fraction which meets the spherical surface is returned to f2. > >So, as time goes by (another assumption, albeit a persistent one), the >bulb at focus f2 will receive more radiation than the bulb at focus f1. > / / \ >Dennis Kodimer / /still waiting for the > *----* electrician or someone Very ingenious! Here's an even simpler version: an ellipsoidal reflector, with a large bulb at one focus and a small one at the other. For the total radiation flux each way to be the same, the small one has to be hotter. Now construct an ordinary heat engine between them. Now, if I understand thermodynamics as well as I think (not that that's very well), the bulbs in either case will be the same temperature, and the total radiation from one to the other will be the same both ways. Each bulb will "see" the other bulb, or part of itself, in all directions, and this reflected bulb surface will all be the same temperature. In the different sized bulb case, the dilemma is easily solved by geometry--part of the bigger bulb will be farther off-focus than any of the smaller, so some of its radiations miss the smaller bulb and rebound to it. This makes the problem equivalent to two equal- sized bulbs in an ellipse and another (arbitrary-sized) one in a sphere. I believe the geometry geometry in Dennis' problem works out the same way, though I haven't proved it. The trick is that one of the foci is close to the "tight" reflector and far from the broad one, and the reverse for the other focus. I conjecture that this means that for bulbs of equal size in Dennis' gadget, much of the radiation from f1 would miss f2 and hit f1, solving the mystery. --JoSH
jhc@alice.UUCP (JHCondon) (05/01/85)
*** *** Some people wonder if the shape of two ellipsoids and a sphere can be created; here is the proof by construction: 1. make a skinny ellipsoid with foci f1 and f2, 2. make a cone with vertex at f1 and axis along f1,f2 , 3. draw a sphere with center at f2 and intersects the circle of intersection of the cone and skinny ellipsoid, the sphere and cone will also intersect in another circle further out along the cone, 4. construct the fat ellipsoid with foci f1 and f2 and through this second intersection of cone and sphere. With this construction it is clear that all the light from f1 hits either one or the other of the two ellipsoids, and that all the light from f2 hits one of the ellipsoids (thereby going to f1) or the sphere (thereby going back to f2). No rays hit the sphere then an ellipsoid or vice versa. This paradox was first published 50+-5 years ago by Edward U. Condon. Another PMM ? In some places of the world, the Bay of Biafra is one, sunlight causes heating and evaporation which results in first tens of feet of water being more saline and warmer than the water several hundred feet down. Take a 200 foot long pipe and suspend it vertically with its top end about ten feet below the surface. Now start and upward flow in the pipe by exhaling air into the bottom end, the bubbles rising in the pipe will drag the water along with it. As the less saline water warms by thermal conduction through the wall of the pipe it becomes less dense than the more saline water on the outside of the pipe. This density difference then maintains the flow once started. On the other hand one could start the flow downward by dropping rocks down the pipe. (Be careful not to drop them on the diver.) It this case the more saline water inside the pipe cools becoming denser than the outside water and so the flow will continue downward. Whichever direction you choose you can put a turbine with electric generator on the end of the pipe. Any excess power should be converted into matter in the form of rocks in case you need to restart. Is this a perpetual motion machine? Let's hear more about machines that run either direction.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/04/85)
In article <3676@alice.UUCP> jhc@alice.UUCP (JHCondon) writes: >*** > >Another PMM ? >In some places of the world, the Bay of Biafra is one, sunlight causes >heating and evaporation which results in first tens of feet of >water being more saline and warmer than the water several hundred feet down. > >Take a 200 foot long pipe and suspend it vertically with its top end >about ten feet below the surface. Now start and upward flow in the pipe >by exhaling air into the bottom end, the bubbles rising in the pipe will >drag the water along with it. As the less saline water warms >by thermal conduction through the wall of the pipe it becomes less >dense than the more saline water on the outside of the pipe. This density >difference then maintains the flow once started. > >On the other hand one could start the flow downward by dropping rocks >down the pipe. (Be careful not to drop them on the diver.) >It this case the more saline water inside the pipe cools becoming denser >than the outside water and so the flow will continue downward. > >Whichever direction you choose you can put a turbine with electric generator >on the end of the pipe. Any excess power should be converted into matter >in the form of rocks in case you need to restart. > >Is this a perpetual motion machine? >Let's hear more about machines that run either direction. No, this is not perpetual motion, since it gets energy from outside. It is in fact a rather inefficient form of hydrothermal power. The energy input comes from the Sun heating the water, which energy can then be extracted by any appropriate method. BTW, I doubt there would be much excess power to be extracted, so it is probably not a useful form of Solar Power. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
cberry@muddcs.UUCP (Craig Berry) (05/06/85)
In article <3676@alice.UUCP> jhc@alice.UUCP (JHCondon) writes: >In some places of the world, the Bay of Biafra is one, sunlight causes >heating and evaporation which results in first tens of feet of >water being more saline and warmer than the water several hundred feet down. > >Take a 200 foot long pipe and suspend it vertically with its top end >about ten feet below the surface. Now start and upward flow in the pipe >by exhaling air into the bottom end, the bubbles rising in the pipe will >drag the water along with it. As the less saline water warms >by thermal conduction through the wall of the pipe it becomes less >dense than the more saline water on the outside of the pipe. This density >difference then maintains the flow once started. [...] > you can put a turbine with electric generator >on the end of the pipe. Any excess power should be converted into matter >in the form of rocks in case you need to restart. > >Is this a perpetual motion machine? Sorry, no. Consider that this system is not in thermal equilibrium; we have warm water at the surface and cold water below. It is this temperature difference which drives the "heat engine" you have described. Note, however, that your pipe, and the entire warm water / cold water interface, continuously conduct heat from the warm layer to the cold layer as long as there is a temperature difference between the layers. As soon as this temperature difference has been eliminated, your PMM shuts down. Of course, in your system the sun will continuously pump additional energy into the upper layer. This will allow the system to operate as long as the sun continues to shine. An interesting side note to this observation is that power plants which extract power from ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) systems similar in principle to the one you describe have actually been built and seem to work quite well, although some problems still remain which prevent scaling them up to a really useful level of power output. Using the sun to power a PMM is clearly cheating, however, since any net power you pull out of such a PMM is obviously "paid for" by the nonreversible fusion of solar hydrogen. Somebody else pointed out recently that if you think you can describe the operation of a PMM using currently known physics, then what you have is not a PMM, since known physics excludes PMMs. Your system is another illustration of the value of this heuristic. If PMMs ever exist, they will operate on principles which cannot be explained using physics as it is currently understood. Rather a depressing thought, really. Oh well, enough for now. I promised my research director that I would have the circle squared by tomorrow afternoon, and I've hit some unexpected snags... :-) Craig Berry {allegra!scgvaxd | ucla-cs}!muddcs!cberry ----------------------------------------- "This is no social crisis, just another tricky day for you." - The Who