Continuous Frictioned Motion Machine

[md65536]

"Evaporation typically involves an energy input."

 

And it is an essential part in the movement of water though a tree. However, here it does not aid in the movement. (I did get one machine to drip, and then submerged it in water. It continued to drip for 10 days.)

Evaporation can use energy to extract liquid from a capillary, freeing it to draw up more liquid. If your device is indeed cycling through the same energy states (which I don't think it is but it could be), this could allow it to do so.

 

"I think that it is very unlikely that you can break a law of science without first understanding it enough to know where (and only IF) it can be broken."

 

What I meant by this... perhaps I should clarify -- I'll restate it:

 

It is VERY UNLIKELY that you can

1. set a goal of breaking a well-established law of science,

2. undertake that goal without understanding the law you're trying to break, and

3. succeed.

 

Or in other words: It's very unlikely that you can design a device specifically to break laws that you don't understand, and have it work.

 

PERHAPS if you understood the law and came up with a theoretical way to circumvent it (ie. to falsify it),

MOST LIKELY you'd still be wrong, but you might not be. It happens and it will continue to happen... it is part of scientific process.

However, laws that are confirmed by hundreds of years of experimental confirmation tend to very rarely be false.

 

PERHAPS if you already HAD a device which SEEMS to break the laws of physics (say if you had a device that ran on 2 car batteries and unexpectedly kept running after you removed them),

even then it is very unlikely that it breaks existing laws of science, or requires new ones. It is more likely that there is some explanation that you're missing.

 

I don't want to discourage you from trying to do the impossible, but there's a fine line between attempting something new without knowing exactly what you're doing, and devoting your time to a hopeless project (like a PMM) while refusing to understand it. (To your credit, you are attempting to understand it, despite refusal to accept the key principles that would let you understand it.)

 

Yes, conservation laws are falsifiable. Your device could be considered an experiment which supports the well-known conclusion: They are not false.

 

I'm sorry this experience has been an unpleasant one for you.

No, the apologies are mine. Discussion can always be beneficial though my negativity may not. And you seem to be committed to truly understanding your device; it should not be my concern what route you take to get there.

Edited February 21, 2011 by md65536

[michel123456]

michel123456, did it get the argument and analysis right?

 

You can call me Michel.

123456 is a code.

 

Yes. But I am not so passionate in your device as you are, and I didn't go into a very profound cogitation. Basically, my argumentation ends with the "maybe this" comment.

Edited February 21, 2011 by michel123456

[christopherkirkreves]

md65536:

 

"No, the apologies are mine."

 

When I go to the supermarket and stand in line and see a tabloid magazine with an article like "An Alien Ate My Baby," I think to myself, perhaps rightly or wrongly, "How stupid it is that people actually believe this."

 

I understand that for me to post a "Perpetual Motion Machine" design in a forum such as Science Forums, where the people here are educated in science, that the reaction I will realistically get will be similar to my feelings in the supermarket.

 

And I understand that it further might even seem incredulous that the person proposing this design, which if true would disprove a Law of physics that has been understood and verified over hundreds of years, has taught himself (and is teaching himself with whatever help he can get) physics, and makes mistakes (… but then does learn from them and corrects them …) like, one, talking about the empty spaces in these capillaries after they've been saturated, and like, two, talking about potential energy being created and destroyed as a dry capillary is created and destroyed.

 

Your attitude towards me is very understandable.

 

"Evaporation can use energy to extract liquid from a capillary, freeing it to draw up more liquid."

 

After the capillary becomes saturated, the fluid spikes out beyond the end of the capillary. This spike is horizontal to the force of gravity. This spike is inline with the lines of flux between the two magnets. This spike then grows horizontally and inline with the lines of flux. And, when the spike breaks off from the end of the capillary and drips, it drips horizontally, inline with the lines of flux, and onto the face of the second magnet.

 

I agree that evaporation can be the force to pull a fluid from a capillary. But it does not seem to be the force at work here. The force at work here, pulling the fluid out from the capillary, seems to be magnetic attraction.

 

"It's very unlikely that you can design a device specifically to break laws that you don't understand, and have it work."

 

I think two things need to be separated out here:

 

1. Understanding the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

2. Understanding the mechanics of my design.

 

My understanding of the First Law of Thermodynamics is this: while energy can change from one form to another, there is never an increase nor decrease in the overall quantity of energy (in a closed system). If we make our closed system the entire Universe, then, in theory, we could go around and add up all the energy, in all its various forms, and come up with a number (e.g. 1.25 zillion units of energy). And, if we then wait five minutes, or a thousand years, and add up all the energy in the Universe again, we will probably find different amounts of energy in it's different forms (e.g. thermal, kinetic, potential), but we will get the exact same total number (1.25 zillion units).

 

To make it even more simplistic, at Time One a ball has just left my hand and is rolling across the floor. This motion is 10 units of kinetic energy. We add this 10 units along with all the other forms of energy in the Universe to get a total number: 1.25 zillion units. This ball will come to a stop. At Time Two when we add up all the energy in the Universe, this 10 units of kinetic energy is gone. However, what brought the ball to a stop is friction. And friction produces heat. And heat is another form of energy. So, at Time Two, while there is a decrease in 10 units of kinetic energy, there has been an increase in 10 units of thermal energy, so the overall amount of energy within the Universe is the same.

 

This is my understanding of The First Law of Thermodynamics. Did I get it right?

 

Now, when it comes to the mechanics of my pmm design, I think I understand them. And if I do, then there is a conservation of energy issue. And, if there is not a conservation of energy issue, then I've misunderstood the mechanics. It has been suggested that I'm ignoring the reasons given to me why this pmm design will not work. I don't think I have. And I hope not.

 

"Your device could be considered an experiment which supports the well-known conclusion …"

 

In the philosophy of science you can never technically prove a theory true (but you can prove a theory false). However, you can show a theory is more and more and more and more likely to be true. This is not my first pmm design. All the proceeding ones I can explain why they fail. I can explain why/how energy is conserved. And I'd like to think I've added (along with everyone else in the last few hundred years) to showing that the First Law of Thermodynamics is more and more and more likely to be true.

 

However, I have yet to find a way out of the conservation of energy issue in this design. Maybe, as it has been suggested, it has been shown to me in this thread, but I'm ignoring it. I hope not.

 

Thank you.

 

 

michel123456 (aka Michel):

 

"Yes. But I am not so passionate in your device as you are, and I didn't go into a very profound cogitation. Basically, my argumentation ends with the "maybe this" comment."

 

Yes. I understand you have more of a "passive interest" in my device, as compared to my "passionate interest," and you were merely suggesting "maybe this" is an area for me to look into. I did. I've studied the wikipedia article, and with the hope that what's posted there is true:

 

1. "Magnetic saturation" occurs due to the intensity of the magnetic field, and not time spent in the magnetic field. A magnetorheological fluid will become more and more solid like as the intensity of the magnetic field increases. However, it reaches a point where increases in the intensity of the magnetic field will not be followed by increases in the solidity of the magnetorheological fluid. "Magnetic saturation" is dependent on the intensity of the field and not time in the field. (If I understood the article right.) The ferrofluids in my machines work just fine for the first few days. The intensity of the magnetic fields do not make them solid like and motionless. It's only after a few days that this happens (and there is no change in the intensity of the magnetic fields over those days).

 

2. However, according to wikipedia, there is "Particle Sedimentation" in a magnetorheological fluid: "Ferroparticles settle out of the suspension over time due to the inherent density difference between the particles and their carrier fluid." (Which is probably what I should have talked about in my last post where I tried to detail out your "maybe this" argument.)

 

3. However, this is where the differences between magnetorheological fluids and ferrofluids becomes important. According the wikipedia they are basically the same thing, but just that magnetorheological fluids have larger suspended particles("micrometre-scale"), while ferrofluids have smaller particles("nanoparticles"). But this difference is size leads to a real difference between them, in that magnetorheological fluids are not subject to Brownian motion, while ferrofluids are. (wikipedia: "Ferrofluid particles are primarily nanoparticles that are suspended by Brownian Motion and generally will not settle under normal conditions.")

 

4. And, also according to wikipedia, there are two ways to slow down the particle sedimentation of a magnetorheological fluid: one, the addition of a surfactant, and, two, the addition of ferrofluid sized nanoparticles:

 

"Surfactant-aided prolonged settling is typically achieved in one of two ways: by addition of surfactants, and by addition of spherical ferromagnetic nanoparticles. Addition of the nanoparticles results in the larger particles staying suspended longer since to the non-settling nanoparticles interfere with the settling of the larger micrometre-scale particles due to Brownian motion."

 

I think the key phrase in the above quote is "… the non-settling nanoparticles …".

 

5. So, I'm new the "smart fluids" and their workings, and there's a lot more I need to learn. But it doesn't look like ferrofluids will corrupt in these machines due to "magnetic saturation" or "particle sedimentation". But I'm open to finding out why I'm wrong.

 

Thank you.

 

[Ethereally Luminous]

If all the poles are south why would the magnetic fluid want to travel at all? Do the particles in the fluid exhibit the same form of polarity as a standard magnet?

[christopherkirkreves]

Ethereally Luminous

 

"If all the poles are south why would the magnetic fluid want to travel at all?"

 

 

Thank you. In my first post in this thread I used this drawing but had the poles on the second wedge magnet backwards. The North side of one wedge faces the South side of the other wedge (and I had, as you pointed out, two South sides facing each other). Thank you.

 

"Do the particles in the fluid exhibit the same form of polarity as a standard magnet?"

 

My understanding is that the particles in a ferrofluid are like a metal ball bearing. When the ball bearing is not in a magnetic field it has no polarity. However, when it is in a magnetic field, it's polarity is in line with the lines of flux from the magnetic running through it. And when it's removed from the magnetic field it will eventually lose its polarity. It's my understanding that the particles in the ferrofluid work the same way. But you may be asking a more sophisticated question than I have the answer to.

 

Thank you.

[christopherkirkreves]

… after some much needed librarial andkerouacian studies, this question …

 

 

A Potential Energy and Capillary Action Question

 

 

As fluid moves up a capillary, gravitational potentialenergy is increased.

 

Energy is conserved because this increase is offset by adecrease in the potential energy due to surface tension.

 

If there is a 10 unit increase in gravitational potentialenergy, then there is a 10 unit decrease in the potential energy due to surfacetension.

 

If a bent capillary has the same length and the same innerdiameter as the straight capillary, then the same amount of fluid moves intothe bent capillary as moved into the straight capillary.

 

There is the same amount of contact between the fluid andthe capillary walls. There is the sameamount of adhesion.

 

There is the same amount of change in surface area. There is the same amount of decrease insurface tension.

 

If the decrease in potential energy due to surface tension is 10 units with the straight capillary, then there is also a 10 unit decrease inpotential energy due to surface tension with the bent capillary.

 

The increase in gravitational potential energy is less inthe bent capillary than in the straight capillary.

 

If there is a 10 unit increase in gravitational potentialenergy with the straight capillary, then there is a < 10 unit increase ingravitational potential energy with the bent capillary.

 

How then is energy conserved?

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

Is the Question Moot?

 

1.

 

>> The question ignores the "point of equilibrium."

 

<< The top of the straight capillary (and therefore thetop of the bent capillary) is lower than the point of equilibrium. Fluid reaches the top.

 

2.

 

>> The question needs to be put in the inverse where withthe bent capillary there is a 10 unit increase in gravitational potentialenergy.

 

<< This, then, means there is a > 10 unit increase ingravitation potential energy with the straight capillary. So, the question remains.

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

How then is Energy Conserved?

 

1.

 

>> Surface Tension Energy.

 

<< If the increase in gravitational potential energy witha rising column of fluid in a capillary is offset by an equal decrease in potentialenergy due surface tension then there is a logical problem.

 

<< The decrease in surface tension is the same with boththe bent and straight capillaries. The decrease in potential energy due tosurface tension is the same with both the bent and straight capillaries. The increase in gravitational potentialenergy is different with the bent and straight capillaries. If the increase in gravitational potentialenergy is offset by a decrease in potential energy due to surface tension, thenthere is a conservation of energy issue.

 

2.

 

>> Capillary Potential Energy (Extended Adhesive PotentialEnergy).

 

<< If the increase in gravitational potential energy witha rising column of fluid in a capillary is offset by an equal decrease incapillary potential energy then there is a logical problem.

 

<< If the potential energy decrease comes from a potentialenergy within a dry capillary, then when a dry capillary is dismantled, adecrease in energy (it takes energy to dismantle a dry capillary) leads to adecrease in another form of energy, capillary potential energy. The potential energy cannot be within the drycapillary itself.

 

3.

 

>> Intermolecular Adhesion and Cohesion Potential Energy.

 

>> It is not only the extended adhesive potential of thedry capillary used in lifting up the column of fluid against the force ofgravity, but also the interaction between the fluid experiencing adhesion withthe walls, and that same fluid cohering with the rest of the cohering column offluid.

 

<< If the increase in gravitational potential energy witha rising column of fluid in a capillary is offset by an equal decrease inintermolecular adhesion and cohesion potential energy then there is logicalproblem and an oversight.

 

<< The adhesion part of this intermolecular mixturerequires the existence of the capillary walls. A dry capillary cannot have any of the potential energy withinitself. If so, then destruction of a drycapillary leads to another conservation of energy issue.

 

<< The amount of adhesion and cohesion is the same withboth the straight and bent capillaries, so this cannot offset the differencesin increases in gravitational potential energy between the bent and thestraight capillaries.

 

4.

 

>> Adhesive Pull.

 

>> There is more pull on the walls in the straightcapillary than there is pull on the walls in the bent capillary.

 

<< Force is not energy. Force is not used up.

 

5.

 

>> Combination of Fluid and Capillary.

 

<< The potential energy cannot be held, even partially,within the dry capillary, without creating another conservation of energyissue.

 

6.

 

>> Fluid Potential Energy and Capillary Opportunity.

 

>> The potential energy, and the potential energydecrease, is all within the fluid. Thecapillary gives the fluid the opportunity to decrease this potential energy. The straight capillary has more opportunityfor the fluid to use its potential energy due to surface tension and the bentcapillary has less opportunity for the fluid to use its potential energy due tosurface tension. The greater theopportunity, the greater the decrease in potential energy due to surfacetension.

 

<< There is the same change in surface tension with thebent and straight capillaries. There isthe same decrease in surface tension with the bent and the straightcapillaries. There is the same decreasein potential energy due to surface tension with the bent and the straightcapillaries.

 

<< If there is a greater opportunity, it does not happen.

 

7.

 

>> Temperature.

 

>> The proposal: As gravitational potential energyincreases, thermal energy decreases. Andso with the fluid moving higher up in the straight capillary than the fluid inthe bent capillary, the temperature within the fluid in the straight capillarywould be lower than the temperature within the fluid in the bent capillary.

 

>> There are web sites where they claim decreases in gravitationalpotential energy lead to increases in thermal energy. And they claim to have experiments to provethis.

 

<< There are not web sites (not that I could find) wherethe claim is made that they have experimental evidence for increases ingravitational potential energy leading to decreases in thermal energy.

 

<< If the increase in gravitational potential energy witha rising column of fluid in a capillary is offset by an equal decrease intemperature then there is a logical problem.

 

<< This concept can lead to conservation of energy withcapillary action, but if then applied to other conservation of energy analyses,then, there energy is not conserved.

 

<< As a pendulum swings up, its kinetic energy is changedinto an equal amount of gravitational potential energy. And as a pendulum swings down, itsgravitational potential energy is changed into an equal amount of kineticenergy. If there is friction, then thisback and forth pool of energy, slowing becomes an equal amount of thermalenergy, as friction creates heat and bring the motion to a stop.

 

<< If we add the concept "gravitational potential energyincreases correspond to thermal energy decrease /and/ gravitational potentialenergy decreases correspond to thermal energy increases" to the analysis of aswinging pendulum, then energy is not conserved in that there is an decrease inthermal energy as the pendulum swings up and an increase in thermal energy asthe pendulum swings down. Conservationof energy is not variable nor cyclical.

 

<< And, why would a substance moving up against the forceof gravity due to capillary action have a thermal energy decrease while asubstance moving up against the force of gravity due to something else, such asbeing in motion or being lifted by hand, does not?

 

8.

 

>> Depth Pressure.

 

>> Pressure increases with depth, and the column of fluidis taller in the straight capillary than in the bent capillary.

 

<< Force is not energy. Force is not used up.

 

9.

 

>> Relativity.

 

<< If Relativity is used to find differences in anotherform of energy to compensate for the differences in increases in gravitationalpotential energy between the bent and straight capillaries, then that logicmost likely will lead to other conservation of energy issues when appliedelsewhere without capillary action, such as with a swinging pendulum.

 

10.

 

>> Time Spent Moving In the Gravitational Field.

 

>> It takes longer for the fluid to move against the forceof gravity to the top of the straight capillary than to the top of the bentcapillary.

 

<< If the time spent moving against the gravitationalfield leads to differences in some form of energy between the straight and bentcapillaries, then this will lead to conservation of energy issues when this isapplied to other conservation of energy analyses, such as a swinging pendulum.

 

11.

 

>> Distance Moved In the Gravitational Field (On A MicroLevel).

 

>> The fluid also moves farther against the force ofgravity in the straight capillary than the fluid moves against the force ofgravity in the bent capillary.

 

<< The further an object moves against the force ofgravity, the greater the potential energy. This is true with capillary action, swinging pendulums, and anythingelse. And there is an equal decrease inanother form of energy, like kinetic energy, to offset this increase.

 

<< However, there is not a decrease in something likethermal energy with an increase gravitational potential energy. And there is not something like a decrease inthermal energy that is greater or lesser depending on how far an object movesagainst the force of gravity.

 

<< A micro level look at "distance moved in thegravitational field" does not lead to an offsetting balance to the differencesin increases in gravitational potential energy between the bent and thestraight capillaries.

 

12.

 

>> Velocity and Collision.

 

>> The fluid in the bent capillary, presumably, reaches agreater velocity than the fluid in the straight capillary because the fluid inthe straight capillary has to move more against the force of gravity.

 

>> When the two columns of moving fluid come to a stop,there is a greater impact with the bent capillary than there is with thestraight capillary, because this fluid is moving faster.

 

>> The greater the impact the greater the thermal energyincrease. More thermal energy is createdwith the fluid in the bent capillary than is created with the fluid in thestraight capillary. This differenceoffsets the difference in increases in gravitational potential energy.

 

<< Where does the kinetic energy come from?

 

<< If it comes from the potential energy due to surfacetension, then two different amounts of kinetic energy come from equal amountsof potential energy due to surface tension, and this is a conservation ofenergy issue. If it comes from thecapillary in its shape size or position, fully or in part, then there is aconservation of energy issue when a dry capillary is dismantled.

 

<< Noting that the difference in gravitational potentialenergy is preceded by a difference in kinetic energy gets us out of one conservationof energy issue, potentially, but then, definitely, into another one.

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

Other Considerations?

 

1.

 

>> The concept of "work" is not addressed.

 

<< The intermolecular forces of adhesion and cohesion actover the same distance in both the bent and straight capillaries.

 

2.

 

>> The concept of "conservation of momentum" is notaddress.

 

<< There does not seems to be a link between "conservationof momentum" and a difference in a form of energy to offset the differences ingravitational potential energy between the straight and the bent capillaries.

 

3.

 

>> Einstein largely distanced himself from his firstpublished paper where it follows from a linear relationship between temperatureand surface tension that, inter alia, a surface can be considered a potentialenergy.

 

<< please see"The Centenary of Einstein's First Scientific Paper", J.N. Murrell and N.Grobert, Notes Rec. R. Soc. Lond. 56 (1), 89-94 (2002).

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

How then is energy conserved?

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

[christopherkirkreves]

"A Potential Energy and Capillary Action Question" Addendum

---

13.

 

>> The "meniscus" is not addressed.

 

<< (Again, the tops of the capillaries are below the point of equilibrium. The liquid reaches the tops.)

 

<< (The attraction between the liquid and the capillary walls is greater than cohesion, while the attraction between the liquid and the reservoir walls is equal to or less than cohesion.)

 

>> A larger meniscus means less of an increase in gravitational potential energy.

 

>> If the meniscus with the straight capillary is larger than the meniscus with the bent capillary then the increases in gravitational potential energy are closer to being equal.

 

 

<< However, the meniscus is part of the surface area.

 

<< A larger meniscus means less of a decrease in surface area.

 

<< Less of a decrease in surface area means less of a decrease in the potential energy due to surface tension.

 

<< If the meniscus is larger with the straight capillary than with the bent capillary, then the decreases in the potential energy due to surface tension are no longer equal.

 

<< The closer the two are in gravitational potential energy, the greater the difference is between the two in decreases in potential energy due to surface tension.

 

<< A larger meniscus with the straight capillary does not resolve the conservation of energy formula.

 

<< (This seems like a possible solution to the conservation of energy formula if we think of wide capillaries without much difference in height. But if the width of the capillaries is space between two glass plates pressed together, and if the height of the bent capillary is fractions of an inch, whereas the height of the straight capillary is several feet, then it's hard to imagine slight differences in the meniscuses equaling out the difference in increases in gravitational potential energy between the bent and the straight capillaries (even if the then created difference in the decreases in potential energies due to surface tension is ignored).)

 

How then is energy conserved?

 

Thank you.

 

Edited April 13, 2012 by christopherkirkreves

[christopherkirkreves]

an answer and another question…

 

An Answer

I've been forwarded several answers to this question. They've all varied wildly, but none of them have seemed to resolve the conservation of energy formula. That is, until yesterday. Yesterday, I was forwarded one that works.

 

The 10 unit decrease in potential energy due to surface tension does not become a 10 unit increase in gravitational potential energy with the straight capillary.

 

Rather, with both the straight and the bent capillaries, the 10 unit decrease in potential energy due to surface tension becomes a 10 unit increase in the sum of gravitational potential energy plus kinetic energy.

 

The more the fluid moves against the force of gravity, on its way to the ends of the capillaries, the slower it will move.

 

In the straight capillary the fluid moves further against the force of gravity. The fluid moves higher, so a greater increase in gravitational potential energy. The fluid moves slower, so a lesser increase in kinetic energy.

 

In the bent capillary the fluid moves less against the force of gravity. The fluid moves up less, so a lesser increase in gravitational potential energy. But, the fluid moves faster, so a greater increase in kinetic energy.

 

(And when the motions come to a stop, the differences in kinetic energy become differences in thermal energy.)

 

Thus, energy is conserved (and the flaw in my logic is exposed).

 

 

 

 

But I've also been thinking about this …

 

Another Question

 

 

 

 

 

Two identical capillaries are in two cups of water. One cup of water is narrow, and the other cup of water is wide.

 

Water moves up each capillary. The water moves up the same height. However, the water level in the narrow cup drops more than the water level in the wide cup. There is a greater increase in gravitational potential energy with the narrow cup than with the wide cup.

 

Surface Changes:

 

1. The liquid-air contact remains unchanged with both the narrow and wide cups.

 

2. The liquid-inner_capillary_walls contact increase equally with both the narrow and wide cups.

 

3. The liquid-cup&outer_capillary_walls contact decreases more with the narrow cup than with the wide cup.

 

The surface tension between the liquid-cup&outer_capillary_walls is more favorable than the surface tension between the air-cup&outer_capillary_walls. There is a change to this less favorable state with both the narrow and wide cups, but more so with the narrow cup. So, there is less of a decrease in the potential energy due to surface tension with the narrow cup than with the wide cup.

 

Thus, not only is there a greater increase in gravitational potential energy with the narrow cup, but this comes from less of a decrease in the potential energy due to surface tension.

 

As the liquid is pulled up into the two capillaries, the fact that the water level drops further in the narrow cup than in the wide cup, should not affect the velocity of the lifting liquids. Differences in kinetic energy conceptually balance out the different increases in gravitational potential energy between the bent and straight capillaries, but there doesn't seem to be the same differences in kinetic energy here to balance out the different increases in gravitational potential energy (and the different decreases in the potential energy due to surface tension).

 

How then is energy conserved?

 

(1. The capillaries are below the point of equilibrium. Fluid reaches the tops. The meniscus will likely be larger in the capillary with the narrow cup than in the capillary with the wide cup. This lessens the increase in gravitational potential energy (and increases the liquid-air contact). But, if the width of the capillaries is like that when two glass plates are pressed together, and if the height of the capillaries is several feet, then it hard to imagine small differences in the meniscuses balancing out the difference in drops in water levels between a very narrow and a very wide cup.)

 

(2. There is perhaps an intuitively misleading aspect to the question. The greater drop in water level might seem to suggest that the liquid in the narrow cup puts more upward pressure on the liquid in the capillary and this will somehow lead to greater kinetic energy in the capillary with the narrow cup. But it's the exact opposite. The liquid levels start out at the same height, but the liquid in the narrow cup quickly becomes lower than the liquid in the wide cup. So there is an equal amount of pressure and then less pressure from the liquid in the narrow cup, than from the liquid in the wide cup, on the liquid in the capillaries.)

 

(3. The liquid that remains in the cups moves as liquid is lifted up and into the capillaries. If the velocity of the rising liquid in the capillaries is the same, then the liquid that remains in the narrow cup moves faster than the liquid that remains in the wide cup. But, more fluid is set in motion in the wide cup than in the narrow cup. So, this movement, it seems, should balance out.)

 

(4. The less favorable surface tension change in the narrow cup than in the wide cup, if anything, would seem to suggest a lessened velocity increase in the liquid in the narrow cup and thus, if anything, would lead to lessen the velocity of the liquid moving up the capillary from the narrow cup than from the wide cup.)

 

 

Thank you.

[christopherkirkreves]

 

A "Wedge Circle" and Brownian Motion Question

 

 

 

 

 

 

side view

A small solid is floating on the top of a liquid. It is contained within barrier walls. The barrier walls reside above the liquid and do no directly interact with the fluid.

 

The small floating solid is subject to Brownian Motion. It moves randomly. And, from time to time, it randomly collides with the barrier walls.

 

 

 

 

top down view

The shape of the barrier is a "wedge circle." The widest part of the wedge is closed off with a straight wall. The smallest part of the wedge is open to the circle.

 

When the small solid collides with the wedged wall, randomly over and over again, the overall angle of reflection is counter clockwise. When the small solid collides with the straight wall, randomly over and over again, the overall angle of reflection is clockwise.

 

 

 

 

 

top down view

The small solid and wedged wall collisions are elastic. The small solid and straight wall collisions are inelastic. After colliding with the wedged wall the kinetic energy of the small solid is preserved in its overall counter clockwise reflection. While, after colliding with the straight wall the kinetic energy of the small solid is not preserved in an overall clockwise reflection.

 

 

 

 

top down view

So, over an extended period of time, the small solid will move in an overall counter clockwise circular path.

 

When the small solid moves in an overall counter clockwise circular path, and does so over and over again, is "work" being done?

 

 

 

---

 

1. A Feynman Brownian Ratchet fails to produce rotation in one overall direction because larger and smaller fluctuations in Brownian Motion in the fluid and solid elements of the system push and retard the ratchet "forwards" and "backwards" equally. While in the question presented here, the Brownian Motion in the small floating solid and in the solid barrier walls will randomly make the reflections more or less clockwise and more or less counter clockwise. With these variations in the angles of reflection being random, however, the probability is that overall they will have no net effect. This question is not just another version of the Feynman Brownian Ratchet. Here, there is a small solid having elastic and inelastic collisions with angled solid barrier walls.

 

2. The collisions do not have to be perfectly elastic or inelastic. If the collisions with wedged wall are more elastic and if the collisions with straight wall are more inelastic, an overall counter clockwise circular path is still created, and the question remains.

 

3. If the space above the liquid is filled with air, then the Brownian Motion interaction between the gas and the barrier walls can complicate the analysis. This is eliminated if we assume a vacuum and not air in the space above the liquid.

 

4. When the small solid collides with the inner circular wall, randomly over and over again, the overall angle of reflection from this is neither more clockwise nor more counter clockwise.

 

5. It would be more accurate to say "When the small solid collides with the wedged wall, randomly over and over again, the probability is for the overall angle of reflection to be counter clockwise." And, it would be more accurate to say "When the small solid collides with the straight wall, randomly over and over again, the probability is for the overall angle of reflection to be clockwise." So, if the collisions with the wedged wall are elastic and the collisions with the straight wall are inelastic, the question should then be "When, as is probable, the small solid moves in an overall counter clockwise circular path, and does so over and over again, is "work" being done?"

 

6. If the collisions with the straight wall are perfectly inelastic, from time to time, the small solid will come to a stop and its kinetic energy will be returned to thermal energy. If periodically stopping seems problematic, then the straight wall can be removed and replaced by an outer circular barrier wall where the collisions will be elastic. Now, the small solid will move in an overall counter clockwise path while within the inner "wedge circle" and will move in an overall clockwise path while within the outer "wedge circle."

 

7. If "work" is being done, what are the second law implications?

[christopherkirkreves]

 

Another "Wedge Circle" and Brownian Motion Question

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

side view / top down view

 

 

 

A small solid is floating on the top of a liquid. It is contained within barrier walls. The barrier walls reside above the liquid and do not directly interact with the fluid.

 

 

 

The shape of the barrier is a "wedge." There are three walls: a long wedged barrier wall, a short straight barrier wall, and a long straight barrier wall. There is a small opening at the narrow end of the wedge, and a small opening at the wide end of the wedge. The barrier walls are fixed in place and do not move relative to the container of fluid.

 

 

 

This is all within a closed system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

top down view

 

 

 

The small floating solid is subject to Brownian Motion. It moves randomly. And, from time to time, it randomly collides with the barrier walls.

 

 

 

When the small floating solid collides with the barrier walls, randomly over and over again, the overall angle of reflection is perpendicular to the angle of each wall.

 

 

 

The overall angle of reflection from colliding with the long wedged barrier wall is slightly to the left. The overall angle of reflection from colliding with the short straight barrier wall is directly to the right. And the overall angle of reflection from colliding with the long straight barrier wall is neither more left nor more right.

 

 

 

(There is also Brownian Motion within the small floating solid and within the solid barrier walls. These fluctuations will randomly make the angles of reflections greater and smaller than the angles of incidences by varying degrees. However, since these fluctuations are random, the probability is that there will be no overall net effect. The overall angle of reflection will be perpendicular to the angle of each barrier wall.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

top down view

 

 

 

There is an area around the small floating solid, within which, it will likely move to next. The specific place it will move to next within this area is random (with the exception that the small floating solid will more likely move a shorter rather than a longer distance). If the distance between the long wedged barrier wall and long straight barrier wall is within this area, then the reflections off of these walls will significantly interact with each other, and after reflecting off of one of these walls the small floating solid will either move out into the open space or it will cross the open space and collide with the other wall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

top down view

 

 

 

If the small floating solid moves out into the open space, and then comes to a stop, its next move will be random. However, with the long wedged barrier wall and the long straight barrier wall being within this area, the movement of the small floating solid will not be totally random. The trajectories of the overall reflections off of these walls crisscross with each other, and nudge the small floating solid more and more to the left in an overall zigzag pattern.

 

 

 

(The actual path of the small floating solid will not strictly be a zigzag. The actual path of the small floating solid will be filled with random movements in all directions. However, overtime, the small floating solid will be nudged more and more to the left in an overall zigzag pattern.)

 

 

 

If the small floating solid crosses the open space and collides with other wall, it will then be reflected off of the other wall. The overall angle of reflection off of the long wedged barrier wall is slightly to the left. So when the small floating solid reflects off of the long wedged barrier wall and then crosses the open space and collides with the long straight barrier wall, overall, the small floating solid will be moving slightly more to the left. And thus the overall angle of reflection off of the long straight barrier wall will no longer be neither more left nor more right. The overall angle of reflection off of the long straight barrier wall will be slightly left. And this will make the overall zigzag pattern slightly more pronounced to the left.

 

 

 

(This more pronounced zigzag pattern also comes from the overall neither more left nor more right longer reflections off of the long straight barrier wall that cross the open space and collide and then reflect off of the angled long wedge barrier wall.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

top down view

 

 

 

When the small floating solid collides with the short straight barrier wall, randomly over and over again, the overall angle of reflection is directly to the right.

 

 

 

At times, the small floating solid will be reflected directly out into the open area of the wedge just to the right of the short straight barrier wall. At other times, after being reflected off ofthe short straight barrier wall, it will collide first with another barrier wall before then being reflected out into the open area just to the right of the short straight barrier wall.

 

 

 

Once in the open area of the wedge, the next movement of the small floating solid will be random. It can move left and collide again with the short straight barrier wall which will reflect it back to the right. It can move to another place within the open area. Or, it can collide with the long wedged barrier wall or long straight barrier wall, where the interaction between these two will start nudging it, overall, back to the left.

 

 

 

 

 

 

top down view

 

 

 

Due to the differences in the reflections from the collisions with the barrier walls and their interactions, the small floating solid will move overall to the left. Then, at some point, the probability is that it will exit the wedge barrier through the small opening on the left.

 

 

 

 

 

 

top down view

 

 

 

If there is an infinitely long line of connected wedge barriers fixed in place above an endless container of fluid, then the small floating solid will move overall to the left forever.

 

 

 

One form of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is "No cycle is possible whose sole result is the abstraction of heat from a single reservoir and the performance of an equivalent amount of work."

 

 

 

"Work" is forcetimes distance. When an object is set in motion "work" is done on that object.

 

 

 

To move the small floating solid continuously overall to the left "work" must be done on the small floating solid. And the "work" done here comes from a single heat bath.

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

top down view

 

 

 

The wedge barrier can be curved around into a "wedge circle." The widest part of the wedge is closed off by a straight barrier wall. There is a small opening between the widest part of the wedge and the narrowest part of the wedge, making it an open circle.

 

 

 

When the small floating solid collides with the outer wedged barrier wall, randomly over and over again, the overall angle of reflection is slightly counterclockwise. When the small floating solid collides withthe straight barrier wall, randomly over and over again, the overall angle of reflection is directly clockwise. And, when the small floating solid collides with the inner circular barrier wall, randomly over and over again, the overall angle of reflection is neither more counterclockwise nor more clockwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

top down view

 

 

 

The trajectories of the overall reflections off of the outer wedged barrier wall and inner circular barrier wall crisscross with each other and an overall zigzag pattern will occur. This will nudge the small floating solid more and more counterclockwise. The longer overall counterclockwise reflections off of the outer wedged barrier wall that cross the open area and collide with the inner circularbarrier wall will make the overall reflections off of the inner circular barrier wall slightly more counterclockwise, and a more pronounced overall zigzag pattern counterclockwise will emerge.

 

 

 

(This more pronounced zigzag pattern will also come from the overall neither more counterclockwise nor more clockwise longer reflections off of the inner circular barrier wall that cross the open space and collide and then reflect off of the angled outer wedged barrier wall.)

 

 

 

After colliding with the straight barrier wall, at times, the small floating solid will be reflected directly clockwise out into the open space of the "wedge circle" just clockwise of the straight barrier wall. At other times, after colliding with the straight barrier wall, the small floating solid will collide first with another barrier wall before then being reflected out into the open space just clockwise of the straight barrier wall.

 

 

 

Once in the open area just clockwise of the straight barrier wall the next movement of the small floating solid will be random. It can move counterclockwise and collide with the straight barrier wall again which will reflect it back clockwise. It can move to another place within the open area. Or, it can collide with the outer wedged barrier wall or inner circular barrier wall, where the interaction between these two will start nudging it, overall, back counterclockwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

top down view

 

 

 

The small floating solid will move in an overall counterclockwise circular path. And then, at some point, the probability is that it will move counterclockwise through the small opening from the widest to the narrowest part of the wedge. The motion in an overall counterclockwise circular path will continue. And this process will continue forever.

 

 

 

Just as "work" is done in moving the small floating solid leftward in the infinite line of connected straight wedge barriers, so to "work" is done in the "wedge circle" in moving the small floating solid counterclockwise over and over again. And, here too, this "work" comes from a single heat bath.

 

 

 

If the small floating solid in the "wedge circle" is connected to a round, and very very light weight, magnet, and if this magnet is capable of rotating around a central axis, then this magnet will be rotated overall counterclockwise. And if a wire is placed perpendicular to the lines of magnetic flux, then a current will be created in the wire in one overall direction. And, in accordance with Lenz Law, when the magnet is creating a current in the wire the motion of the rotating magnet (and the connected small floating solid) will be slowed to equal the current created in the wire. The thermal energy of the fluid is turned into the kinetic energy of the small floating solid (and rotating magnet) and this is then turned an electrical current.

 

 

 

Another form of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease with time."

 

 

 

As long as there is thermal energy the small floating solid (and the magnet) will continue move overall counterclockwise, and more and more thermal energy will be turned into an electrical current.

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

What are the Second Law implications of the "wedge circle?"

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

1. The Feynman Brownian Ratchet fails to produce rotation in one overall direction because larger and smaller fluctuations in Brownian Motion in the solid and fluid elements of the system push and retard the ratchet "forwards" and "backwards" equally. The question presented here involves a small floating solid having collisions with differently angled barrier walls. The Brownian Motion fluctuations in the solid elements here will make the angles of reflections greater and smaller than the angles of incidences to varying degrees, however, since these fluctuations are random, overall they will have no net effect. The "wedge circle" is not just another version of the Feynman Brownian Ratchet.

 

 

 

2. In the straight wedge barrier, the overall reflections near the corner between the short straight barrier wall and the long wedged barrier wall are largely perpendicular to each wall, even though each wall blocks the open area to one side of the other wall, since that also near the corner between the two walls there will be more reflections off of one wall that then reflect off the other. (And the same is true in the "wedge circle" with the reflections near the corner between the straight barrier wall and outer wedged barrier wall.)

 

 

 

3. There is an overall zigzag pattern that emerges between the short straight barrier wall and long wedged barrier wall in the straight wedge barrier, and between the straight barrier wall and outer wedged barrier wall in the "wedge circle." While moving the small floating solid away from the corner, the small floating solid is moved a little bit more rightward and a little bit more clockwise. While this slows the overall leftward motion and overall counterclockwise motion some, this does not change the overall effects.

 

 

 

4. The analysis is easier if the collisions are considered perfectly elastic. If less than perfectly elastic collisions occur, heat is generated (and the motion of the reflected small floating solid is slowed down). This heat is concentrated, at first, at the point of contact. It will then disperse out from there until it is evenly spread throughout the system. Considering less than perfectly elastic collisions complicates the analysis, but does not change, overall, the angle of reflection. Before the heat is evenly dispersed throughout the system, there will be a greater concentration of heat in the barrier wall, in barrier wall side of the small floating solid, and in the liquid around and beneath the barrier wall. This greater concentration of heat will mean more Brownian Motion activity on the barrier wall side of the small floating solid than on the other. This will push the small floating solid further away from the barrier wall but, overall, it will not change the angle of reflection.

 

 

 

5. The small floating solid does not need to move infinitely leftward or counterclockwise forever for "work" to be done. When Brownian Motion sets a small floating solid in motion, without the presence of barrier walls, in one random direction and then another, "work" is being done. Another form of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is "If a system undergoes spontaneous change, it will change in such a way that its Entropy will increase or, at best, remain constant." It is well known that when Brownian Motion sets a small floating solid in motion (or even when the random fluctuations of Brownian Motion lead to momentary decreases in Entropy within the fluid itself) that this formulation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is temporarily violated. This is also true when the small floating solid is within the wedge barriers. However, when the small floating solid is within the wedge barriers and the motion of the small floating solid starts and stops and starts again, the overall path of that motion is predictable. There is a greater decrease in disorder when the small floating solid moves around within the wedge barriers than when it moves around without them. And there is a greater decrease in Entropy.

 

 

 

6. There is probably no need for the small floating solid, and the same effects could come from just a fluid in a "wedge circle" shaped container, but the overall movement of a mass of fluid, as opposed to the movement of a single floating solid, is much harder to conceptualize.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 5, 2012 by christopherkirkreves