Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Practical" perpetual motion involves an engine that can be used to do work without an energy input.

That's what the term means to a scientist or engineer.

Not quite, an initial energy input may be required. I suppose you can theorise a perpetual motion engine that starts off moving. However working with this

in any event can the engine (space probe) do work, yes it can.
Is it receiving further energy input. not it isnt.
Is it slowing at a rate meaningful on an engineering level, no it isnt.

Practical perpetual motion is achieved.


Anyway we are going round in circles. Unless you have something new this one is done.

 Orlanth wrote:
in any event can the engine (space probe) do work, yes it can.

No it can't. Please go review physics 101 before posting again.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
in any event can the engine (space probe) do work, yes it can.

No it can't. Please go review physics 101 before posting again.

Please review the differences of practical and literal and learn some manners. I know my 'physics 101', my prior posts acknowledged such.

Second law of thermodynamics is understood, which is a negligible factor not a non factor in the continued motion of the space probes due to lack of mass to provide noticable friction.
For real life applications, as this is because the probes are real, negligible factors can be ignored in engineering.

Do you have anything new to add?

What does that have to do with your (laughably false) statement that the probe can do work?

 Peregrine wrote:
What does that have to do with your (laughably false) statement that the probe can do work?

Because the probes do:

Laughably false?

They accumulate and send data while moving forwards. Even when that mission ends with battery failure at around 2030 (Voyager only, the Pioneer probes are now shut down) it still 'works' as a monument/unguided missile carrying recorded data.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Practical" perpetual motion involves an engine that can be used to do work without an energy input.

That's what the term means to a scientist or engineer.

Not quite, an initial energy input may be required. I suppose you can theorise a perpetual motion engine that starts off moving. However working with this

in any event can the engine (space probe) do work, yes it can.
Is it receiving further energy input. not it isnt.
Is it slowing at a rate meaningful on an engineering level, no it isnt.

Practical perpetual motion is achieved.


Anyway we are going round in circles. Unless you have something new this one is done.

The key point of a perpetual motion engine is that you can get out more work than you put in. It doesn't matter whether the energy input happens at start up or during the performance of the work. It is the excess energy which is the perpetual motion.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The key point of a perpetual motion engine is that you can get out more work than you put in. It doesn't matter whether the energy input happens at start up or during the performance of the work. It is the excess energy which is the perpetual motion.

A perpetual motion infers a negation of friction. Unlimited output is something else. If you put 10 joules of energy into a literal perpetual motion engine you can draw out 10 because it loses no energy to friction, if you don't draw those ten joules out they stay there 'perpetually', if you can draw out 11 then you make a mess of physics there and then.

 Orlanth wrote:

Redefining concepts so that they make sense within the laws of physics and are useful is a laudable goal.

We don't redefine concepts. We redefine words. And having a flexible standard of redefinition is at the heart of Flat Earthism, and sophism.

 Orlanth wrote:

Flat Earther's methodology is a denial of evidence under the mantle of conspiracy and manufactured counter-evidence.

I like how you've constructed a definition of Flat Earthism that excludes yourself.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Redefining concepts so that they make sense within the laws of physics and are useful is a laudable goal.

We don't redefine concepts. We redefine words.

Sorry, that is incorrect. The redefinition of the words redefines the concepts directly reliant on the words. Hence by redefining the word vacuum to include extremely low pressure densities then you redefine the working concept of a vacuum.
Better examples than this lie in politics. There are myriad examples of political usage of redefining words to redefine concepts, we even have a term for its its called the political dialectic.

 Orlanth wrote:

Flat Earther's methodology is a denial of evidence under the mantle of conspiracy and manufactured counter-evidence.

I like how you've constructed a definition of Flat Earthism that excludes yourself.

 Orlanth wrote:

Sorry, that is incorrect. The redefinition of the words redefines the concepts directly reliant on the words. Hence by redefining the word vacuum to include extremely low pressure densities then you redefine the working concept of a vacuum.

You have it backwards. Words refer to concepts. We redefine a word to include a new concept when a new concept is created.

 Orlanth wrote:

Actually I gave a fair description of Flat Earthism, not my own construction.

It was your own construction by necessity, and it was also deliberately inaccurate.

 Orlanth wrote:

Why dont you grow up and learn some manners. Repeated acts of trolling and ad hominem attacks do not a reasoned argument make.

I've not trolled you in this thread, or used invalid ad hominem. I have, however, trolled you in the past, though probably not when you thought I was.

I have, in this thread, had to explain to you what trolling is and used valid ad hominem along with pointing out where you have made mistakes, and made comparisons to your arguments where appropriate.

You are very bad at this game.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Sorry, that is incorrect. The redefinition of the words redefines the concepts directly reliant on the words. Hence by redefining the word vacuum to include extremely low pressure densities then you redefine the working concept of a vacuum.

You have it backwards. Words refer to concepts. We redefine a word to include a new concept when a new concept is created.

We create a word to define a new concept, though that word may have a prior meaning, when we redefine a word (seperate from giving it additional meaning) we redefine the concept to which the word relates.
Motives in doing so can vary, from simplifications like the concept of vacuum changing from an absolute value to a practical one. Yes this can be dishonest, as with many forms of political dialectic. This is best and most clearly covered in Orwells 1984, though real world applications surface often enough. Usually over contentious issues, so I would rather avoid derailing the thread by giving further examples.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Actually I gave a fair description of Flat Earthism, not my own construction.

It was your own construction by necessity, and it was also deliberately inaccurate.

Care to explain how you come to that conclusion. and how do you claim to be deliberately inaccurate.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Why dont you grow up and learn some manners. Repeated acts of trolling and ad hominem attacks do not a reasoned argument make.

I've not trolled you in this thread, or used invalid ad hominem. I have, however, trolled you in the past, though probably not when you thought I was.

You have trolled me many times past and present, and yes I do notice, its hard not to. You aren't as clever as you think you are, if you were you wouldn't need to behave as you do to drive your points home.

 dogma wrote:

I have, in this thread, had to explain to you what trolling is and used valid ad hominem along with pointing out where you have made mistakes, and made comparisons to your arguments where appropriate.

Your misinterpretation of what is trolling is of no surprise to me. Its merely self justification for amoral conduct.

 dogma wrote:

You are very bad at this game.

If trolling and being offensive is a 'game' to you that I ask you nicely, find another game.
Playing 'games' with you is a course hazard in the way of conversing with someone else. You make frequent blanket denials, personal attacks and deliberate mis-interpretions, these need be answered in the event that they are cursorily mistaken for a correct analysis of my position.
Still I keep match with you without resorting to the same strategem, thankfully that is beneath most other posters here.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
What does that have to do with your (laughably false) statement that the probe can do work?

Because the probes do:

Laughably false?

They accumulate and send data while moving forwards. Even when that mission ends with battery failure at around 2030 (Voyager only, the Pioneer probes are now shut down) it still 'works' as a monument/unguided missile carrying recorded data.

Wow. Thank you for proving your hilarious ignorance here. Maybe you should go look up what "work" means in the context of a perpetual motion machine before you post any more embarrassing mistakes?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
What does that have to do with your (laughably false) statement that the probe can do work?

Because the probes do:

Laughably false?

They accumulate and send data while moving forwards. Even when that mission ends with battery failure at around 2030 (Voyager only, the Pioneer probes are now shut down) it still 'works' as a monument/unguided missile carrying recorded data.

Wow. Thank you for proving your hilarious ignorance here. Maybe you should go look up what "work" means in the context of a perpetual motion machine before you post any more embarrassing mistakes?

I'll do it for him
Work

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
What does that have to do with your (laughably false) statement that the probe can do work?

Because the probes do:

Laughably false?

They accumulate and send data while moving forwards. Even when that mission ends with battery failure at around 2030 (Voyager only, the Pioneer probes are now shut down) it still 'works' as a monument/unguided missile carrying recorded data.

Wow. Thank you for proving your hilarious ignorance here. Maybe you should go look up what "work" means in the context of a perpetual motion machine before you post any more embarrassing mistakes?

I was aware of multiple definitions of the word 'work' you should have clarified your question, especially when you were passing comment on an ongoing conversation.
'Work' can be seen in two contexts here:

1. Does the space probe constantly expend energy relevant to its characteristic of forward motion.
2. Is the space probe a practical construct in its current form and therefore one that is valid to be seen from an engineering point of view as opposed to a raw physics point of view.

The first option didn't make any sense and is obvious to everyone that it doesn't require asking, as the space probes are not continually powered to be moving forwards but are moving onward through inertia.
You see a perpetual motion device doesn't need to expend energy 'perpetually', it just needs to be in motion 'perpetually'. That only applies to an engine that is constantly expending energy, now most people look at perpetual motion ideal as referring to lack of friction not unlimited output. The former requires an elimination or practical elimination of friction, that latter a 'perpetual' internal energy source, an immediate violation of the laws of physics. This is because open system machines with unlimited external input, such as water wheels, do not count as perpetual motion devices even if they can continue moving 'perpetually', only closed systems count only stored energy counts, yet output of that stored energy is not .

The second option is how I answered the question, it was a logical question to ask. One look at the space probe concept will show you that it doesn't expend (noticable) energy perpetually, so I mistakenly credited your question with more insight than I should have and answered the question as an engineering one (2.).
For a construct to be seen in engineering terms first rather than theoretical terms then it must first be practical. So for example if study lasers in vacuum in theory you use an absolute vacuum for the theory, when studying lasers in vacuum in practice we use a non-literal vacuum as the model.
'work' in terms of whether the space probes could therefore be considered practical and thus seen in engineering terms.
Is there any justifaction of seeing it on those terms. Yes there is:

 Orlanth wrote:

in any event can the engine (space probe) do work, yes it can.
Is it receiving further energy input. not it isnt.
Is it slowing at a rate meaningful on an engineering level, no it isnt.

Peregrine, this is what you were quoting to gain the word 'work', you were quoting me. Note the context.

in any event can the engine (space probe) do work, yes it can. - so its practical and should be looked at with practical engineering defintion
Is it receiving further energy input. not it isnt. - so its a closed system
Is it slowing at a rate meaningful on an engineering level, no it isnt - acknowledging the second law of thermodynamics, while highlighting its practically unlimited forward motion.


So in a nutshell Peregrine you misread what I wrote, applied a different meaning to my words and then had the ill manners and hypocrasy to call me hilariously ignorant when I used my own words in the way they were originally meant. You have earned this:

We are discussing science and we need to use words as defined in science or we cannot understand what we are talking about.

A rock can be a perpetual motion machine if we define it that a picture having been carved on it -- i.e. a data recording -- is a form of work.

But that isn't how science defines work. Science defines work (broadly speaking) as getting energy out of a system.

From that viewpoint, Pioneer is not doing work simply by moving or holding a recording. It does work when it hits an interstellar particle and transfers some kinetic energy to the particle. At the same time, Pioneer loses the kinetic energy it transferred to the particle, and slows down a tiny bit.

Due to the very small number of the particles in interstellar space, Pioneer will not hit them often, so it will lose kinetic energy at a slow rate. But it will lose energy.

Of course, Pioneer also gets overtaken and hit by particles from behind. When that happens, it gets a bit of kinetic energy from the particle. Since Pioneer is moving away from the Sun, the particles from behind are probably more numerous than the ones from in front, due to the Solar Wind, so it may actually be speeding up from the impacts.

There's nothing special about a probe flying in space, it adheres to Newton's Laws. That a body in motion will not change its velocity unless acted upon by another force. Perpetual Motion devices as the term is intended are machines capable of infinite work, unlike the probe drifting in a vacuum (and this overlooks micro material in space and gravitational fields that would act upon a probe anyway) the devices that people wish to build expend infinite energy because they work against losses of energy.

So while a probe can be in motion perpetually (assuming it never meets any other forces at all) it's not a perpetual motion device as the term is intended. Such devices are supposedly able to keep running even when energy should be lost due to heat, drag, friction, etc. No device can create energy, it has to come from somewhere, you can't have a system putting out more energy than is put in - but that is the goal of such 'inventors'.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We are discussing science and we need to use words as defined in science or we cannot understand what we are talking about.

A rock can be a perpetual motion machine if we define it that a picture having been carved on it -- i.e. a data recording -- is a form of work.

But that isn't how science defines work. Science defines work (broadly speaking) as getting energy out of a system.

This is very true, but 'work' has several meanings. Read this:

I travelled to work, then went to work studying work from a book of physics then I was paid for my work.

Even if discussing physics I am still permitted to use work in other contexts in the conversation so long as they are on topic. Peregrine misread me, which is fine, then he got rude about it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

From that viewpoint, Pioneer is not doing work simply by moving or holding a recording. It does work when it hits an interstellar particle and transfers some kinetic energy to the particle. At the same time, Pioneer loses the kinetic energy it transferred to the particle, and slows down a tiny bit.

The Pioneer probes are not doing work (physics term) at all, gyroscopic operations ceased in 1995 and 2003 respectively. The Voyager probes may do work, but only incidentally as a part of equipment operation, the Voyager probes must orientate themselves to send and receive data, to do this requires a small amount of thrust from on board stores. Any benefit gained is purely incidental, intermittent and finite.

 Orlanth wrote:
Even if discussing physics I am still permitted to use work in other contexts in the conversation so long as they are on topic. Peregrine misread me, which is fine, then he got rude about it.

The comment I quoted was in reply to an explanation which clearly used "work" in the physics sense. So either you're too clueless to know what work is, or you're dishonestly changing definitions again to make them fit your bizarre claim.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Even if discussing physics I am still permitted to use work in other contexts in the conversation so long as they are on topic. Peregrine misread me, which is fine, then he got rude about it.

The comment I quoted was in reply to an explanation which clearly used "work" in the physics sense. So either you're too clueless to know what work is, or you're dishonestly changing definitions again to make them fit your bizarre claim.

No it wasn't, read more carefully next time. I know what I wrote and in the context of how and why I wrote it.

Also it is evident from my posts that I understand the physics involved, I repeatedly explained how i wasn't arguing against canon physics. The only people who couldnt see that are those who did not want to. After all its easier to troll me if you refuse to acknowledge my arguments and instead insist on assuming I am making another completely different argument that is clearly erroneous to myself and others. I get enough to this sort of juvenile idiocy from dogma, don't add to it.

Its ok that you misread what someone writes, its an honest simple mistake. What is not ok is that you grab onto it like a mad dog on someones leg and won't let go even when told that wasn't the point made.

So please, mind your manners if you want to have a civilised adult discussion.

 Orlanth wrote:
No it wasn't, read more carefully next time. I know what I wrote and in the context of how and why I wrote it.

Oh really? Let's look at the post you were replying to:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Practical" perpetual motion involves an engine that can be used to do work without an energy input.

That's what the term means to a scientist or engineer.

You know, I think that makes it pretty clear what type of "work" is involved.

So please, mind your manners if you want to have a civilised adult discussion.

I'll mind my manners when you stop redefining terms for no good reason and then insisting that things are true based on them.

 Orlanth wrote:

We create a word to define a new concept, though that word may have a prior meaning, when we redefine a word (seperate from giving it additional meaning) we redefine the concept to which the word relates.

No, that's incorrect. A word is given a definition to bring it into accordance with a concept. If you read any academic article you'll find some section that essentially amounts to a list of terminological definitions to be employed in the course reference a concept to be discussed so as to avoid repeatedly explaining the concept.

When we employ a word in a new way, thereby redefining it, we don't change any of the other concepts to which the word relates. If we did the English language wouldn't function. This is also why you see individual words listed with different definitions in dictionaries.

 Orlanth wrote:

Care to explain how you come to that conclusion. and how do you claim to be deliberately inaccurate.

It was deliberately inaccurate because it necessarily excluded your behavior in this thread, despite well established tradition among various Flat Earth groups which is consistent with what I described; one which you yourself have referenced before. This last part is the key, I'm arguing from a position that you've adopted before and are now rejecting because it does not favor you.

 Orlanth wrote:

You have trolled me many times past and present, and yes I do notice, its hard not to. You aren't as clever as you think you are, if you were you wouldn't need to behave as you do to drive your points home.

Sure I am. Being clever doesn't mean being subtle, though I can do that too. Being clever has more to do with ingenuity and flexibility, which occasionally means being blunt.

I think part of the problem is that you become annoyed when people cut directly through many of the aesthetic arguments you attempt to make, and cannot support in any way that is not equally aesthetic.

 Orlanth wrote:

Your misinterpretation of what is trolling is of no surprise to me. Its merely self justification for amoral conduct.

No, its just me describing what trolling is. I didn't say that made my conduct justified, just that it wasn't trolling. The justification you gave for troll in this thread is merely being insulting which, as I said, is not the same thing as trolling.

Calling someone is dick is not being a troll. Its being insulting.

Coming into a thread about someone's death and blathering on about how you don't care is being a troll, albeit a very bad one.

 Orlanth wrote:

If trolling and being offensive is a 'game' to you that I ask you nicely, find another game.

No, the game is conversing over the internet with people you do not know. Though, really, the game in real life doesn't change much, people still do things like troll and deliberately insult for the fun of it, the stakes and amount of available information simply change.

 Orlanth wrote:
...deliberate mis-interpretions, these need be answered in the event that they are cursorily mistaken for a correct analysis of my position.

If you believe I misinterpret your positions, then perhaps you should make them more clearly? One of my general criticisms of your posting style if that you use vague terminology where ever you can, and when called on it appeal to something needlessly abstract like "the human heart". When called on that you repeat your original point without engaging the criticism.

As to the blanket denials: when people are clearly factually inaccurate the only response that does not involve a degree of effort this forum is not worth is a flat denial with a bit of explanation.

 Orlanth wrote:
I am not advocating that practical perpetual motion is literal perpetual motion.

Yes, that's exactly what you're arguing because you're trying to re-purpose a term with a specific technical meaning, in a thread about that specific technical meaning, in order to make a type of device that might be considered to be in perpetual motion* as one which is in literal perpetual motion. What's more, your argument itself is fundamentally flawed in that it turns on what "perpetual" actually means. In a colloquial sense it means "never ending" but as regards physics it means "never ending insofar as the laws of physics remain consistent", seeing as this a conversation about technical terminology, you are far off base.


*Given a highly flexible, and non-technical meaning of the term.


Separate:

Please outline how you intended to demonstrate that your position was correct. You don't have to prove it, just outline the argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

So please, mind your manners if you want to have a civilised adult discussion.

I like how "mind your manner" means "deal with Orlanth."