🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <31B88D41.F95@aft.sn.no> Andreas Haffner <ahaffner@aft.sn.no> writes:
>From: Andreas Haffner <ahaffner@aft.sn.no>
>Subject: Re: Perpetuum Mobile invented !
>Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 22:12:49 +0200

>mcdermid@hcl.com wrote:
>> 
>> In <31b75faa.504355@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>, kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov (Kevin D. Quitt) writes:
>> >No, actually is powered by changes in temperature.  But the question was
>> >"close" to perpetual montion, and this clock is as close as you're going to
>> >get.  Which makes it interesting.
>> >
>> 
>> I suppose that depends on your definition of "close".  To me, "close to perpetual
>> motion" would mean a device with very close to 0 energy loss while moving.
>> I don't think this clock qualifies, since it could be arbitrarily inefficient, as long
>> as the power system was able to generate enough power to keep it going
>> despite the inefficiency.  Consider a wristwatch powered by a steam engine
>> attached to a generator.  Even with a total energy conversion efficiency
>> of .01% the generator could keep that small a load going.
>> 
>> Of course, I imagine the Atmos clock _is_ pretty efficient to work from just
>> temperature changes, but I'm sure you could do better.
>> 
>> The best I can come up with is a top spinning on a diamond point in a vacuum.
>> It would help if the surface it was sitting on was made of diamond too, I
>> suppose.  Best if it was made of something non-conducting too, so stray
>> magnetic fields didn't affect it.
>> 
>> I imagine that would keep going for a pretty long time.
>> 
>> Another good one is a closed loop of superconductor with a current flowing
>> through it.  That'd probably keep going for quite a while too.
>> 
>> -- Rob
>> ===============================================================================
>> Robert McDermid     (Hummingbird Communications Ltd.)
>> mcdermid@hcl.com     Unless otherwise stated above, all opinions are my own
>>                      and do not reflect the views of Hummingbird Communications
>> ===============================================================================

>Both systems you describe seem to be an energy storage, but not an engine in usual 
>sense. And making energy storages 100% efficient is not so hard as long as it is 
>mechanical work you are storing: a spring for instance.

Sorry, but a spring (or *any* mechanical energy storage system) has internal 
losses which result in <100% efficiency.

>- Andreas Haffner

Bob C.

* Good, fast, cheap!  (Pick 2) *