Perpetual motion machine ?

[john]

Hi ALL,you have all got my mind working overtime now,when we are talking about light generating heat and a form of energy. Ok lets not let the light out,but use the same idea to increase it. This I would try to do by having another inner tube covering the inner surface,made of something that was clear and could withstand a lot of heat.
This way you would see the light but none of the particles would get out,if you say light is a mass of particles bouncing around.
Martins getting very near to what type of perpetual motion I was thinking of. I'm Thinking something like a two half surface,which can be put together with a disc inside,done by having the doughnut ring shape on the outside,held inplace by the inner hole space,with a drive spindle hole in the centre. Into the outer doughnut ring space on the flat disc edge you would have lots of facing away half cone shapes particles catchers,close to the inner surface,with the light sourse on the otherside.
This is what I see will work,after the two outer halfs have been put tightly together and sealed,leaving only the drive spindle sticking out,with the disc inside being able to spin freely.
To start the whole thing off,we use some sort of light,this I believe would start the disc turning,as the light goes round and around inside the tube. Thus making some form of contact with the disc edge,which I believe will then turn the spindle to drive something with the help of some magnets,what do you think.
This design of mine should cut out lots of the problems with drag,lose of light,slowing down,and maintenance. Something like a spinning top,spinning inside a shell of the same shape,driven by light and a magnectic field. May this idea give power to the people. John.J.R.P.

[colhut]

This way you would see the light but none of the particles would get out,if you say light is a mass of particles bouncing around.

Sorry John, but when you see light what you are doing is detecting the photon (particle) of light hitting your the retina in your eye, in other words you are detecting a particle that has left the chamber. If you can see it then it has already left the chamber, you wont see a mass of particles flying around, only the particles as they leave the chamber.

To start the whole thing off,we use some sort of light,this I believe would start the disc turning,as the light goes round and around inside the tube. Thus making some form of contact with the disc edge,which I believe will then turn the spindle

if the light makes contact with the inside of the tube one of 2 things can happen, firstly if the surface is perfectly reflective then the photon of light will bounce off having imparted no energy to the wheel, alternatively it will strike the wheel imparting its energy to it but destroying itself in the process.

[john]

Hi Muddypause,a good point what you said about white reflecting light,but doesen't a chrome or a mirror like surface increace the light that falls upon it. It would be great if someone out there chromed the inside of a tube and bent it to make it go round,and then shined a tourch light up it to see if the light could be seen at the other end or not,as every thing I've got is chrome on the outside. Trying the white paint idea I can try out myself and you can too,done by pouring it done the tube with the aid of a funnel,with one end blocked off,to then be released back into the paint can,and left to dry. The paint might allow us to bend a stright pipe a bit at a time to see if and when the light can't be seen. I will do this in a dark room to give me a better view of the light inside the tube. I will let you know how I got on. I hope you and other try it out too,or who have already done it. What a great idea for school children to try out, to do as a project.

I was thinking how I would increase the light inside the tube after it started to be reflcted,say from the first spark. This is what I came up with to help solve the lose of light problem,they say will happen.
I would have the inside surface covered in small round vertions of the old type car headlamp reflectors,with the bulb out space at the bottom filled in with a chrome base or a chrome half ball like centre,to reflect the light that hits all the sides,to then hit the centre base or dome,to then be reflected back to another same type reflector,which inturn will reflect onto another same type reflector.
To give you a clearer picture of what four reflectors would look like from the top view. It would be four round circles touching each other,with a space in the middle,that's the place I would have the holes so we could see the light inside the tube,with another tube covering the holes inside or outside.
I can see it working,what do you or any one else think. John. J.R.P.

[colhut]

but doesen't a chrome or a mirror like surface increace the light that falls upon it.

No. That statement is not true.
The very best you could hope for (under theoretical perfect circumstances that don't exist in the real world) would be for the surface to reflect 100% of the light that hit it. In reality it won't reflect all of it, some will heat up the mirror surface.

To examine your contention lets assume its true. First I get my chromed chamber, and into it I fire a single photon of light. sooner or later it hits the side and gets increased and relected, for arguments sake we will assume that my one photon is now 2 photons. This happens again and we get 4 photons, then 16, then 256, 65536, 4294967296 and so on at an ever increasing rate. As you can see the numbers run away tending towards infinity at an ever increasing rate. Now heres the bit that really bites, photons of light exhibit mass like properties. So if the contention were true our chamber would get heavier, worse still we have a fixed volume of ever incresing density, soon it would develop a detectable gravity of its own and then as it got more and more dense more matter would be attracted to it. sooner or later even the light shining on the outside would be unable to escape the extreme gravity. What we just created is a black hole.

Nice idea though, but fundamentally if you increase the light levels you have got more energy than you started with and you have to be able to answer the fundamental question of where did it come from.

[Martin]

hmmmmmm!
Now if you made a mobius strip with optical fibres - it would only have one side! - if you could work out how to get to it's other side, the free power may be lurking there!

[Martin]

John, I think we may have it cracked!
I've just done a small experiment to prove the theory! - tricky devils Mobius strips - just confirmed that if you make one out of paper, about 2" wide, and you then snip right round the middle - it doubles in size, do it again........in theory, to infinity - and only one side! - all we have to do is find the other side!
-an infinitely large other side!

[Muddypause]

The Mobius strip is a con. It took me a long time to figure out the trick of it, but it is not a strip that has a single side. For a start you have to consider its thickness. Then consider how you would represent it if you drew it out orthographically.

What you actually have is a four-surface strip, at which, where it twists, the 'top' surface changes from being wide and flat to being a compound curve with a very narrow top, through another compound curve to another wide flat surface.

Similarly, the side surface, or edge, goes from being a very narrow surface, to being a compound curve with a wide flat surface, back to being a narrow surface.

It's kinda hard to explain without a Mobius strip in front of you, but lay it on a flat surface, and view it from above, and keep a clear focus on what is the top surface - don't get distracted by the twist.

[Muddypause]

The Mobius strip is a con. It's often presented as a mathmatical or geometric anomaly, but it is, in efferct, just another three-card trick. It took me a long time to figure out the trick of it, but it is not a strip that has a single side. For a start you have to consider its thickness. Then consider how you would represent it if you drew it out orthographically.

What you actually have is a four-surface strip, at which, where it twists, the 'top' surface changes from being wide and flat to being a compound curve with a very narrow top, through another compound curve to another wide flat surface.

It's kinda hard to explain without a Mobius strip in front of you, but lay it on a flat surface, and view it from above, and keep a clear focus on what is the top surface - don't get distracted by the twist.

Similarly, the side surface, or edge, goes from being a very narrow surface, to being a compound curve with a wide flat surface, back to being a narrow surface.

So there.

Doesn't stop it being an entertaining thing to play with for a while, though.

[Martin]

ahhh! - so if you gave one side a positive electrical charge - where's the negative?

[Muddypause]

More to the point, look what happens when I try to edit the post - the whole internet gets a twist in it, and I end up with twice as many posts as I started with.

Actually, that's what happens when Linux crashes as I press the submit button (and no delete button in this section, either!).

[john]

Hi ALL,it's great talking to you,with what I have read so far,I have just invented a new power supply to drive something like a engin,just like the old steam train or a new photon engin. As I see it if you can start something moving like a piston with a mass of built up photons from one spark of light,surely we have cracked it,a new energy supply at last to save our planet,created from light,which also gives us heat,then pressure,that pressure can be used to make something move,that small movement can be changed into a big movement.
I'm saying it could all start from here,or am I just thinking aloud. John. J.R.P.

I was going to say twist the Mobius strip,but not knowing what one was. I looked it up in my dictionary. I was right but I've still got to work out how you can get the opposite sides to touch is that right,my next thought was twist the strip and turn it into a round spring shape. John. J.R.P.

[Martin]

so if you carried on slicing it up the middle until it was "higher" than "wider", you'd have a positively charged top - the negative would be - on the side? - or up the middle like a stick of rock?
If it was up the middle, and you then sliced it again, and again, where would the charge be travelling? - would it move to the centre of the slice?

[Muddypause]

John, I think the other's have answered the points you ask about, but it is interesting to see that the way you are describing your tube, it is very similar to a fibre optic. In a strand of optical fibre, the light bounces off the internal sides, and this is what enables the strand to be bent round corners, and still be able to transmit light. And if you have ever seen a fibre optic strand, you will have noticed that very little light escapes through the sides - almost all of it is reflected internally, until it comes out of the end. And this confirms Colhuts comments that unless the light escapes and gets into your eye (or other detecting device), you can't see it.

But you might be interested to know that there are surfaces that will give out more light than actually reflects from them. These are florescent surfaces, like 'day-glow' colours, which appear somehow unnaturally bright. But it's a bit of a cheat really - some of what falls on them is not visible light, but untraviolet radiation. This is normally invisible to the human eye, but a florescent surface will convert UV light into visible light. This means that such a surface appears brighter than something that simply reflects light - it really does emit more than falls on it. This is how some washing powders make your clothes 'whiter than white' - the powder has florescent particles in it.

Y'know, the more I think about it; the more I find out; the more I manage to understand about things, the more of a wonder all of nature is. Everything works together; everything balances each other. Nothing is lost or wasted. The more I find out, the greater my wonder.

Every force is balanced, no energy is lost, everything is accounted for. That's perfect - why would we want it to be otherwise? How could we presume that we could make it oherwise? We simply cannot cheat or fool nature.

And to my mind that is marvelously wonderful. Trying to find a way to double cross nature by getting something for nothing seems a bit like trying to improve upon the Sistine Chapel with a can of aerosol paint.

John, rather than starting from the premise of "How can I get something for nothing, by inventing a perpetual motion machine?", how about using your inventive mind to think up devices or situations like your light tube, and then simply asking "What happens?". Find out how nature keeps things in perfect order, regardless of what we do. Keep asking questions like 'why', 'what happens when...' and 'what if...' (though this is not the right forum for in-depth answers).

Wanting to invent a perpetual motion machine is inevitably bound to be frustrating and disappointing, and will probably lose most people's interest pretty quickly. But simply trying to understand how things all work together, how everything fits in, and what happens in certain situations, can be fascinating.

[john]

Hi Muddypause,does it mean my granted patent for a florescent element realy is a brilliant idea of mine to help save lives.
As you said,my element surface appears brighter than something that simply reflects light. I will have to tell my family to see if they are interested in making a lot of money,because I'm skint. I like to think if I became a millionair I would have the money to change the way things are for the better,which would effect every body rich or poor. John.J.R.P.