YouTube and the Modern Mad Scientist (hackaday.com)

szczys writes: Making change for $1.00 and getting $1.10 back. That's the premise of overunity, free energy, and perpetual motion experiments. Using money as the the analogy is fitting because these concepts are heavily aligned with scams trying to land a payday for their "research". But there is another branch of people working on them: tinkerers who believe they can actually solve the problem. Laws of thermodynamics say otherwise, but this isn't necessarily wasted time. Other breakthroughs are waiting to be discovered as these mad scientists try to remove all efficiency losses from their doomed systems. YouTube can be an interesting place to look for ideas on low-friction, high efficiency fabrication.

Comments

Accusation through misunderstanding

[Aighearach]

It may be that they're not intending to "break the laws" of physics at all, but discover/uncover new ones. It may be that "overunity" sucks energy out of some sort of sub-space field (intentionally borrowing from sci-fi, calm down) that we haven't yet discovered. It seems that the pundits are the source of most of the perpetual-motion misconceptions, rather than the tinkerers themselves.

They aren't trying to create "free energy" in the physics domain. They're trying to create "free energy" in the economics domain; if we can suck energy out of dimension X, then until we're bombed by the inhabitants of that realm it will appear as (economically) "free."

They're talking about "free as in beer" not "free as in freedom."

Re:Accusation through misunderstanding

[Lab Rat Jason]

I came here to post the same thing... except that instead of sub-space sci-fi... I was going with mother nature... like your compass spinning when standing at magnetic north, I suspect they will stumble upon a method of extracting a minute amount of energy from the environment, and due to their lack of scientific understanding they will attribute it to perpetual motion rather than simple energy balance accounting. Then some scientist will come along and explain it in a few minutes and the "inventor" will be all sad because science crapped on their idea.

The bottom line is they spend years tinkering with an idea, that a scientist armed with a little math and chemistry can debunk in a matter of minutes... leaving the rest of the time to do real science.

Re:Accusation through misunderstanding

[gstoddart]

It may be that they're not intending to "break the laws" of physics at all, but discover/uncover new ones. It may be that "overunity" sucks energy out of some sort of sub-space field

So ... what, we should watch every crank and snake oil salesman to see if they've uncovered any new physical laws?

No thanks, sounds like a colossal waste of time.

I mean, go ahead, try to find these new laws or watch these videos. But don't expect the rest of the world to treat it as anything credible.

Life is too short to listen to every crackpot theory as if it deserves it.

Re:Accusation through misunderstanding

[ledow]

This is along the lines of:

"If I keep tossing this coin, eventually it will disappear into thin air and magically turn into a unicorn".

Scientifically speaking, there's virtually no difference, in fact. There's experimentation, there's pushing for new science, and then there's just bollocks.

It doesn't work like that. You find something unusual ("Hey, this part of the air is slightly warmer than expected... I wonder if...") and investigate the cause, or you hypothesise more accurate explanations of what we can observe and try to predict something entirely new (which you can then confirm by a single good experiment).

You don't just insist that flipping enough coins will make magic happen which will cause enough anomalies that will break existing laws that have held through countless billions of experiments consistently.

You are literally suggesting discovering new science by brute force, in an infinite-sized universe, with infinite levels of precision available.

Re:Accusation through misunderstanding

[jbeaupre]

One of my favorite sci-fi short stories had a similar premise. Some guy discovers a way to make an inter-dimensional portal. No one knows where the other end is, but it's blazing hot on the other side. Everyone starts building simple heat engines to harvest the energy. And all is well until .... ... the Devil sues the guy. Heat was being drained from Hell and was predicted to cause widespread problems. Epistemological (as opposed to ecological) disaster of biblical proportions.

Funny stuff.

Re:Accusation through misunderstanding

[Aighearach]

I suspect they will stumble upon a method of extracting a minute amount of energy from the environment, and due to their lack of scientific understanding they will attribute it to perpetual motion rather than simple energy balance accounting.

IMO it is equally likely that they will in fact have good ideas about where the energy comes from, but media pundits will invent a fake claim of perpetual motion to slander them. I mean, that is where things already are, they'd only have to keep saying the same things.

There was actually a propulsion device in that category tested by NASA recently. The inventor is probably wrong about the mechanism, but a valid hypothesis led to the (working) device. Then the media got started with it, and if you ask a random neckbeard they can explain to you that it was just snake oil "because perpetual motion."

Re:Accusation through misunderstanding

[avandesande]

Physicist are already working at this with things like LIGOS and LHC, except at a trillion + times the precision people monkeying around with magnets and wires are working with.

Re:Accusation through misunderstanding

[MobyDisk]

What distinguishes science and pseudoscience is the scientific method.

The quack inventors aren't using science to propose a new idea like a sub-space field, then creating a test to confirm it. They are usually building something that science can already explain perfectly, then hand-waving away the difficult bits, and drawing an unsupported conclusion. By contrast, when someone asks a question, writes a theory, then builds a device to test that theory -- that's not a quack, that's a scientist.

Example: The EM drive. While everyone was skeptical, it was real scenc. It dealt with an area of physics that there wasn't 100% agreement on, there was a written formula, and it was testable.

Re:Accusation through misunderstanding

[Lab Rat Jason]

I doubt the media can make it any worse than the explanations already offered by the perpmo crowd. If they had an actual scientific understanding of what was happening and allowed their work to be peer reviewed, then they would be.... wait for it... scientists.

Re:Accusation through misunderstanding

[Aighearach]

We don't even know if the Universe is a closed system, and the "Big Bang" is pure hypothesis since nobody has done an experiment to make sure that photons look the way we expect after 10 billion years of travel. Subtle effects we couldn't detect on Earth because of local noise might easily alter the implications of that sort of work. It is largely speculative, because it represents the edge-data of the sensors. Edge data from every type of sensor is low quality. If you really honestly apply the scientific method, then if the Big Bang is true we could never establish it, because we'd never be able to do the needed experiments to verify the sensor calibration. That proponents of the hypothesis insist it is "proven" is a giant red flag for mindless consumption of received knowledge.

"In a closed system entropy always goes up." Great, now prove that any system that exists or ever existed is closed. It can't be done, it would require proving a negative. Even to the extent that we understand the laws of thermodynamics, we can't assess what they do or do not exclude. We can only assess the parts of in the middle that overlap our engineering capabilities.

Re:Accusation through misunderstanding

[captaindomon]

Then some scientist will come along and explain it in a few minutes and the "inventor" will immediately claim that the scientist is working for Big Government or Big Oil or Big Solar or Big Pharma, or that the scientist is in league with aliens, or that the scientist is an alien in human form trying to prevent them from discovering the secret that makes UFOs fly. They will keep the same debunked machine going around and around in the conspiracy market for thirty or forty years, speak at conferences, and take any skepticism as proof that their alien hypothesis is right.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Accusation through misunderstanding

[glitch!]

I would also be interested to know the title. You would probably enjoy a similar story by Asimov, "The Gods Themselves".
ROT13 semi-spoiler:
Gur uhznaf bcra n cbegny gb n havirefr jurer fhongbzvp sbeprf ner qvssrerag naq gurl vzcbeg znggre juvpu fybjyl nqwhfgf gb "bhe" ynjf naq eryrnfr raretl.

Re:Accusation through misunderstanding

[TheCarp]

Yes but its not brute force. Some of these things are orthogonal to each other. You can not understand magnetism and thermodynamics to the point that you think your crazy idea works, yet still not reject all of modern physics well enough to contribute to other fields in your mad quest.

I was going to make up a fake example....but I realize I have one.

A while back I had a passing interest in water torches. What is a water torch? It is an oxy-hydrogen torch which uses electrical current to produce its input gasses via electrolysis. The real upside (for me) is that there is no need to store dangerous gasses, as they can be produced and used as needed. These are actually produced commercially, and have been for many years, you can buy one off craigslist for a few hundred bucks.

Problem comes in.... some people believe that they can produce some sort of free energy device by feeding oxyhydrogen gas into their car that they make from their alternator.... stupid....I know.... but, if you want to do this, a very natural first step is to make an oxyhydrogen torch to test your oxyhydrogen generator.

In fact, if you wanted to look at this as a DIY project....good luck finding many people doing it who are NOT these special car free energy crazies. However, they really have produced a lot of good info....in spite of their own stupidity.

So its not brute fore, because the problems they are solving are real, its just the problem they are trying so solve isn't....which means.... they will never stop solving problems trying to solve it....

Re:Accusation through misunderstanding

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the allegorical chemical photography example. "Photography is a hoax. You're doing some trick there in the dark where we can't see it. Whenever we try to develop your so-called photgraphs with the lights on so we can see what's really happening, the experiment fails."

Re:Accusation through misunderstanding

[operagost]

Ha ha, very funny. I'm sure you thought some schmuck was going to read your spoiler out loud and thereby release the undead to destroy the living, but I'm on to you.

Re:Accusation through misunderstanding

[burtosis]

It's worth pointing out that "conservation of energy" is not a property of the universe we inhabit. Sure, at human-tinkering scale it is, and these guys won't achieve over-unity, but in the greater scheme of things: energy is not conserved in general relativity.

Incorrect. Macroscopically, and in general relativity energy is conserved. In quantum mechanics it's still conserved on average, but not conserved for specific cases which then average out in the long term or over multiple measurements/outcomes. It is a fundamental concept and not only has never been shown incorrect, but is a required underlying concept for all of physics.

Conservation of energy is mathematically equivalent to "current age of the universe is not an input to the laws of motion" (time intervals are unrelated). It doesn't work out that way in GR, mostly because the idea of "current age" doesn't apply.

Relativity is odd that way. The mass of an object depends on it's total potential energy (a compressed spring is heavier). That concept of potential energy having some absolute total value, not just relative values to an arbitrary "floor", doesn't exist in "normal" physics. All that matters is potential difference (aka "force"). That change makes most of our intuitions, heck most of the stuff engineering is built on, wrong.

There is a floor in relativity, and that is in the reference frame at rest with respect to the object. The relativity aspect is that you could imagine a moving reference frame which only adds to the energy. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Suffice to say that if the underlying principles of physics and engineering were significantly wrong in everyday energy levels and scale, even at 15 decimal places, we wouldn't have gps or any number of practical functioning devices that show - yes indeed it is correct. We all know physics is wrong, but only at energy levels and scales that don't apply to humans.

Re:Accusation through misunderstanding

[serviscope_minor]

Not it was snake oil because "Nother's theorem".

Reactionless thrust means that momentum is not conserved and that means the physical laws are not uniform. The latter is a HUGE claim and so far all they have are some thrusts well within experimental error to justify what would be the result of the century.

Re:Accusation through misunderstanding

[burtosis]

Not only is energy not conserved, but it keeps increasing as our universe full of dark energy keeps expanding.

This energy could be mined:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995ApJ...446...63H

Again incorrect. When you total all energy in the universe, including that from gravitational fields it is likely zero. It has always been zero, and will continue to be zero. Even if you were to somehow harvest dark energy (which btw only is a meaningful amount when you talk about millions of light years) you would essentially be bringing two masses together and is exploiting gravitational potential energy.

Re:Accusation through misunderstanding

[Nazlfrag]

Well it goes back to the ultimate question, if mass/energy/momentum is conserved, where did it come from in the first place? If creation of energy is forbidden, then creation itself is also forbidden, therefore there must be a way to create energy.

I'm one of these guys...

[bcware]

Yeah, I perform my own "perpetual" motion experiments, but I have never shared my inventions with anyone. I have a PhD... in pharmacy, but I've never seriously entertained the idea that I might succeed. My goal has always simply been to come close. We don't need true perpetual motion, for example, just something that doesn't need to be reset very often. If I only have to raise a weight, reset a machine, wind a clock, etc, etc, weekly who cares. It's a minor inconvenience. For some reason these machines are dismissed and treated as black or white; complete success or complete failure. I live in the grey area.

Somethin' from nothin'

[fahrbot-bot]

Making change for $1.00 and getting $1.10 back. That's the premise of overunity, free energy, and perpetual motion experiments.

And any Republican tax plan: lower taxes == more revenue. [ No wonder they hate science and math. :-) ]

Re:Somethin' from nothin'

[zapadnik]

Wow. You don't understand economics at all, do you?

Where do taxes come from? the Real Economy (outside the Government).

Every dollar taken out of the productive Real Economy and put into unproductive and wasteful Government Economy means there is less dollar for investment and growing the economy. Which means, in the long term, less economic growth and a lower tax haul.

Now , it is obvious that if you lower taxes too much you get less Government Revenue (as if this was a bad thing - when the State steals money from the industrious and innovative). Also, if you raise taxes too much it also strangles the economy too, resulting in lower economic growth which means lower tax take in the long term.

So this is a 'Goldilocks Problem' where you want some tax but not too much. It turns out that optimal tax rate to maximize Government tax income while simultaneously maximizing economic growth (which helps citizens, as well as increasing future tax take) is around 23%. Most Governments are filled with economic illiterates that are strangling their economies (when they aren't simultaneously debasing their currency through inflationary printing).

It turns out that Republicans understand this, but you apparently do not. Disclaimer: I'm not a Republican, nor an American - but I LISTEN to what the Republican and Democrat arguments are (unfiltered) from the source. The Scientific Method requires this of me.

Unfortunately too many people do not LISTEN to the other side's arguments and reasoning. They listen to the propaganda one side makes against the other, and they form very strong opinions based on their ignorance. We all need to get out of this bad habit. From what I can see, Democrats mean well but never check whether their policies actually produce more harm than good, thus they cannot understand the Republicans who also mean well but have to temper idealism with practicality. Thus, Republicans cannot understand the ignorance of Democrats (like the silly, economically-ignorant argument made by the parent), and likewise the Democrats consider the Republicans "meanies" because they don't understand the Republican arguments at all.

How about we all learn to LISTEN with OPEN MINDS to the arguments made by people we disagree with. This is not only required by the Scientific Method, but is the true root to wisdom. Diversity of Opinion is the only diversity that actually matters - so let us embrace it.

Re:Somethin' from nothin'

[fahrbot-bot]

Now , it is obvious that if you lower taxes too much you get less Government Revenue (as if this was a bad thing - when the State steals money from the industrious and innovative). Also, if you raise taxes too much it also strangles the economy too, resulting in lower economic growth which means lower tax take in the long term.

You'd think so, but check the US deficit and national debt during Republican vs Democratic terms and you'll see this isn't (necessarily) true. Our economy, debt and deficit have fared worse under Republican terms than Democratic. Perhaps this was a result of the Goldilocks effect you describe, maybe not. In any case, the Republicans want to substantially lower taxes on the Rich in the mistaken belief that they will reinvest that money into the economy, by hiring and expanding, when history and studies have shown that they tend to (mainly) squirrel that away or spend it on themselves. Their companies are now getting along with fewer of those pesky employees; why hire more when you can simply work the ones you have to death - who are scared to leave because the "economy is bad" and no one's hiring...

Perhaps a little hyperbolic, but there's more truth in the above than there should be.

Re:Somethin' from nothin'

[fahrbot-bot]

(a) My initial statement was meant as more of a joke - and was modded as such. (b) Republicans assume that lowering taxes - usually and mainly on the rich - stimulates the economy as those "job creators" reinvest that money back into the economy. History and studies have shown that not to be the case. Reducing taxes on the rich, just makes them richer. The way Republicans like to reduce taxes shifts the burden to the middle-class, who then end up paying for Government services used by not only the poor, but the middle-class themselves. In addition, making everyone pay the same rate and, assuming by loopholes you also mean deductions, eliminating all "loopholes" disproportionately injures the poor as a larger proportion of there basic earnings is spent on necessities as opposed to the wealthier. Hardly fair.

The Tea Party only cares about reducing spending on things that (a) they, themselves, don't care about and (b) doesn't affect them. They're not quite the paragons of virtue and fiscal responsibility you perceive them to be through your rose-colored glasses. For example, to quote from the Rolling Stone article (from 2010 mind you):

(Rand) Paul ... denounced Medicare as "socialized medicine." But this spring, when confronted with the idea of reducing Medicare payments to doctors like himself — half of his patients are on Medicare — he balked. This candidate, a man ostensibly so against government power in all its forms that he wants to gut the Americans With Disabilities Act and abolish the departments of Education and Energy, was unwilling to reduce his own government compensation, for a very logical reason. "Physicians," he said, "should be allowed to make a comfortable living."

Quite the self-serving hypocrite, Rand Paul. His father, Ron Paul, on the other hand, was probably closer to the real thing for which you yearn.

Cheers.

/. editors know less science than mad scientists

[angel'o'sphere]

The laws of thermodynamics only say: a heat engine can not be a 'perpetum mobile'.

Other perpetium mobiles might be possible, or not, who cares. They are certainly not covered by the laws of thermodynamics. Oh, you mean the law of energy conservation? Unfortunately, that is an universal law and strictly speaking not a law of thermodynamics (those guys have their own variation of it, as in 'the sum of all energies in a closed system is constant' etc.)

Getting boring meanwhile that 99% of all posts and articles containing the magic words 'thermodynamics' are either simply wrong or grossly misleading.

Re: Wat

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory Mark Twain quote: "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt."

Re: /. editors know less science than mad scientis

[sbaker]

Hmmm - Wikipedia has an article entitled "Laws of thermodynamics" and it says:

    "First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter,
      into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of
      conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind
      are impossible."

    "Second law of thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of
      the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases. Equivalently,
      perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible."

It backs up those statements with no less than five scholarly references.

No mention of heat engines there...and an explicit statement that conservation of energy and the first law are equivalent. So, no - you're wrong - it's equally valid to discuss the first law and conservation...but conservation laws don't forbid perpetual motion machines of the second kind (the kind that operate perpetually - but produce no energy output) - so talking about thermodynamics makes a little more sense in this context.

Thermodynamics and time

[mveloso]

Theoretically, everything will balance eventually. Eventually can be a really long time, but it's usually a really short time.

Re: /. editors know less science than mad scientis

[sbaker]

OK - so how about http://www.genchem.net/thermo/... or http://www.physlink.com/Educat... or https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k...

None of them are talking only about heat engines - they carefully point out that historically, thermodynamics was all about steam engines. But nowadays, it's realized that the laws are far more universal than that.

Not one of them talks about "the triple of volume, pressure and temperature" - that stuff is a tiny, tiny subset of what modern thermodynamics covers. You're still back in the Victorian era of steam engines.

Anyway - I'm done arguing with you. I guess that 99% of other people here agree with me.