3 ms·

Yes, but it is quite hard to define it precisely — which is partly why it was so astonishing then and now. For instance, to say: “a machine that operates indef

Yes, but it is quite hard to define it precisely — which is partly why it was so astonishing then and now. For instance, to say: “a machine that operates indefinitely without the addition of fuel or energy” well, neither fuel nor energy is added to this machine, not in any apparent way. Instead, it absorbs the natural fluctuations of the surrounding environment and translates that to motive power. Now imagine that some huckster claimed to do that with “quantum zero point energy” or something, I think we’d treat the device like a perpetual motion machine — and look under the table for the trick. You’ll need to translate the page. It’s a fascinating story. Drebbel isn’t well known in the English speaking world — but he also designed the first cybernetic system, a thermostat. https://historiek.net/perpetuum-mobile-cornelis-drebbel/150502/ https://historiek.net/perpetuum-mobile-cornelis-drebbel/1505...

jacquesm 3y ago
That's fair, the definition itself is difficult. What's interesting is that there is a never ending stream of would-be inventors of PMs that really believe in their devices no matter how easy it is to poke holes in the physics. Most of them don't begin to qualify for a closer examination (assuming they'd agree to that in the first place) and the few that do are often marvels of engineering and the inventors themselves don't actually know or realize how their devices work. I was part of an online community of renewable energy enthusiasts and we had more than our fair share of cranks there peddling their 'free energy', 'over unity' and 'perpetual motion' devices so I'm probably too bluntly dismissive of anybody that thinks they've finally got it. Usually they are clever engineers but they miss the physics theory. And if even the US patent office continues to fall for it who am I to complain... https://patents.google.com/patent/US6362718 https://patents.google.com/patent/US6362718

jacquesm 3y ago

That's fair, the definition itself is difficult. What's interesting is that there is a never ending stream of would-be inventors of PMs that really believe in their devices no matter how easy it is to poke holes in the physics. Most of them don't begin to qualify for a closer examination (assuming they'd agree to that in the first place) and the few that do are often marvels of engineering and the inventors themselves don't actually know or realize how their devices work. I was part of an online community of renewable energy enthusiasts and we had more than our fair share of cranks there peddling their 'free energy', 'over unity' and 'perpetual motion' devices so I'm probably too bluntly dismissive of anybody that thinks they've finally got it. Usually they are clever engineers but they miss the physics theory. And if even the US patent office continues to fall for it who am I to complain... https://patents.google.com/patent/US6362718 https://patents.google.com/patent/US6362718