慕容青草的博客
哲学园地
The 2021 Twin Towers of Energy from Air
Rongqing Dai
If I were to choose four groups of words for 2021, then the first would be "energy", the second "perpetual motion machine", the third "atmosphere", and the fourth "tower".
The reason is simple: in 2021, I proposed two new ideas of energy generations with specific conceptually designed models. Both of them are aiming at helping humans to extract energy from the atmosphere that has so far been pretty much quietly awaiting to be exploited, one is for perpetual free production of energy in the sense of “perpetually generating energy from the motion of the machine itself” or “perpetually generating the useful energy without consuming other energy resources”, and another is for low cost perpetual production of energy in the sense of “generating energy with the perpetually recycled fluid media at the minimal cost of the auxiliary chemical reagents”.
The first one is based on one type of practically verified real products that have been around for more than a decade, while the basis for the second one might sound less cogent. For the first model, there would be basically no daily operational consumption of other forms of raw energy resources, and the upfront investment cost and maintenance cost should also be low, so it is 100% feasible; while the second model would need a certain amount of daily operational material consumption, and the upfront investment cost and maintenance cost would also be potentially higher than the first model. For the first model, building a tower could help to improve efficiency but not indispensable, while for the second model, a tower is a must.
Based on the above comparison of the characteristics of those two models, we can easily see that the first one has the overwhelming advantage. The reason why I would still talk about the second model as well in this essay is because, after all, I proposed both the two models of energy generation in 2021 (actually I proposed the second model earlier than the first model), and also because of another reason that I would give at the end of this essay.
Unlike the existing geothermal, wind, hydroelectric, solar, and other kinds of green energy generations, both models of energy generation that I proposed in 2021 have very low requirements for natural conditions. Basically, as long as there is an open space plus the capacity of building construction, we can build those new power generation facilities.
Now let me first review the idea of ??the first model that is 100% feasible, and then revisit the idea of ??the second model.
1. Perpetual Motion Power-generation Tower (PMPT) [[1]]
The design of the first model is based on the Blackbird sportive car (Figure 1), which represents a more general kind of vehicles called as direct downwind faster than the wind vehicle, or DDWFTTW vehicle for short.
Figure 1. The Blackbird Sportive Vehicle (By Stephen Morris-Photo sent by Stephen Morris, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=34916718)
The most intriguing issue here is that the DDWFTTW vehicle does not have any energy-powered engine or man-powered driving device like that of a bicycle, and obviously is not powered by animals, but its speed can exceed the wind speed when initially driven only by the wind. Actually I saw from online about a decade ago some international competition of college students with the same kind of vehicles but running against the wind without any propelling engine. I was shocked and very impressed at that time. In fact, all the DDWFTTW vehicles are supposed to be able to make upwind movement since the mechanics does not change as the mode of the motion changes from downwind to upwind. It was confirmed by Rick Cavallaro, one of the two builders of the Blackbird, that the Blackbird can also do upwind motion [[2]]. Accordingly, DDWFTTW has become the common name of all the vehicles that can make downwind faster than the wind or upwind motions, regardless of their actual mode of the motion.
Earlier this year, I saw the online video of Derek Muller driving the Blackbird [[3]] and then his video of winning the famous bet [[4]], which brought me into the investigation of the mechanism behind the DDWFTTW motion after seeing no correct account for it having been given by anyone yet, and then that investigation led me to the design of the model of the perpetual motion for free production of energy as well as the design of the model of low cost energy production siphon tower.
- The violation of thermodynamics laws
Predictably, the biggest question surrounding the DDWFTTW phenomenon would be: Does it really violate the thermodynamics laws?
Unfortunately, so far none of the people who have ever designed, built, and demonstrated (e.g. Muller) the DDWFTTW motion has dared to announce that the DDWFTTW phenomenon indeed violates the thermodynamics laws. Instead, they have tried very hard to reason that the DDWFTTW motion does not violate the thermodynamics laws. This makes me the only one, at least ostensibly the only one in this world, who has kept shouting loudly that the DDWFTTW motion does violate the thermodynamics laws, not only the second law but also the first law of thermodynamics!
Actually I should say that, fortunately for me, no one except me has so far dared to say that the DDWFTTW motion violates the laws of thermodynamics. You will soon see how great a loss this is for those who missed the chance to make that kind of announcement. In fact, if those pioneering DDWFTTW researchers have dared to say that the DDWFTTW motion violates the thermodynamics laws, it would not be up to me to propose in 2021 the first design model of realistically viable perpetual motion machine in human history that can continuously extract free energy from nature without additional energy consumption, more than ten years after the advent of the DDWFTTW vehicle, after a large amount of manpower and material resources had been devoted in studying the DDWFTTW phenomenon, since the perpetual motion power-generation facility that I have proposed in 2021 is a direct application of the DDWFTTW vehicle.
Figure 2 is the schematic diagram of the basic conceptual design of the perpetual motion power generator (PMPG) model that I proposed in 2021. The idea is indeed simply straightforward and feasible to anyone who admits that the DDWFTTW phenomenon for which Muller has won a $10,000 USD bet is real.
The vehicle in Figure 2 is different from the ordinary sportive DDWFTTW vehicles with two peculiar features: 1) it would be equipped with a propelling engine at its back; 2) it would carry a permanent magnet.
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of a perpetual motion DDWFTTW vehicle with a magnet running upwind on a circular track wrapped with metal circuit(s).
The track shown in Figure 2 would be built indoor to avoid the disturbance of outdoor wind; correspondingly, the DDWFTTW vehicle in Figure 2 needs to be equipped with an engine at its back. Its role is not like the role of an ordinary vehicle engine to maintain the DDWFTTW vehicle running (since the DDWFTTW vehicle is a perpetual motion machine, there is no need for an engine to maintain the movement); its role is only to create the initial movement of the vehicle. Once the DDWFTTW vehicle has obtained a certain speed, the engine would stop working, and the DDWFTTW vehicle would continue to move on its own like the Blackbird. Alternatively, we might also use electric means to kick off the motion of the vehicle and then cut off the external electricity supply once the vehicle picks up certain speed.
The short lines in the cross sections of the circular track in Figure 2 represent metal circuit lines.
There could be different ways for us to extract free energy using the facility shown in Figure 2. An easy and straightforward way is to wrap the track with metal circuit lines, and let the vehicle carry a permanent magnet so that the movement of the vehicle would create electric current(s) in the circuit(s) when the circuit lines cut the magnetic lines of force.
1.2. The track and the tower
1) The circular track in Figure 2 on which the DDWFTTW vehicle would run could be with or without a material rail like the train track; a strong string or straight beam connecting the vehicle to the center of the circle could also keep the vehicle in a circular movement without a rail.
2) Considering that all the existing successful demonstrations of the DDWFTTW motion (no matter in upwind motion or downwind motion) have been carried out on straight line roads, to be safe, the radius of the circular track in Figure 2 should be much greater than the length of the vehicle body, so that on each line segment, the motion of the vehicle would be like on a straight line track. Since the actual DDWFTTW demonstrations have never been carried out on a perfectly straight road (so it is unavoidable that every segment of the actual path has a certain curvature), as long as the radius of the circle is large enough, we can reasonably consider that the validity of the DDWFTTW motion condition as shown in Figure 2 has been tested and proved in all those previous successful DDWFTTW demonstrations. However, this should not be deemed as the verdict that a relatively small radius would not work. The lower limit of the ratio of the radius of the circular track to the length of the vehicle body could be determined by experiments.
3) Multiple DDWFTTW vehicles could run on a single circular track. Therefore, even if the radius of the circular track needs to be much greater than the length of the vehicle body, it may not be much greater than the sum of the body lengths of all the DDWFTTW vehicles running on the track.
4) In order to improve the land use efficiency, we can build a multi-storey tower, with each floor having one or more of the above circular track. With the modern construction technology, it would not be a problem to build a tower with dozens of stories high, which can greatly increase the continuous production of free electricity without the consumption of raw energy resources.
1.3. The expected skeptical reaction from the audience to the violation of thermodynamics laws
It is almost certain that someone who is allergic to any hint of violating the laws of thermodynamics will jump out and say: “what you are proposing here is not a perpetual motion machine, because you would use a magnet.”
It's ok. If you are really afraid of the name “perpetual motion machine”, let's give it a name that would fully reflect the characteristics of the free energy generation model that I have proposed: a machine that would continuously generate electricity without constantly consuming any raw material energy source.
In fact, the use of magnets would not necessarily be the most important factor that would prevent the facility designed here from being a “perpetual motion machine” in a strict sense, because the lifespan of the magnet could be much longer than the lifespan of the component parts of the DDWFTTW vehicle or the lifespan of the satisfactory road surface quality of the track.
But so what? ? ?
It would be the first time in human history that it is possible to generate electricity continuously throughout the year without the need for continuous raw energy consumption which is inevitable for any generators that have been in use so far. As long as the selected materials (magnets, circuit lines, road surfaces, and vehicle parts and bodies) are of good quality, the PMPT facility can continuously generate electricity for a long time (several years or decades) without energy cost after a one-time investment. In my opinion, this is good enough for the title of “perpetual motion machine”.
We might also expect that some people might question the feasibility of the perpetual motion power generation proposed here on the grounds that the force between the magnet and the metal circuit lines is a force that does not exist in the ordinary DDWFTTW motion, and thus has not been tested as being able to be overcome by the DDWFTTW mechanism. Well, if someone really raises such a question, then I would suggest the person to watch Muller's video of running 2.8 times the wind speed in the Blackbird and see how poor the road condition there was. The contrast between that kind of road condition and the proposed smooth indoor ground track would tell us that the reduction in the friction and bumpy dissipation of the road surface could well be used to overcome the force between the magnet and the metal circuit lines.
1.4. Comparisons to other forms of power generation
(1) Solar panels: There are several differences between the free energy generator introduced here and the solar panels:
First of all, the DDWFTTW vehicle could be called “perpetual motion machine” because the energy it acquires is produced by its own motion, while the energy obtained by the solar panel is produced by sunlight;
Second, due to the above difference, solar panels need to be laid on a large area of land (which would indicate a big amount of upfront cost), and they must be placed outdoors which is not favorable for maintaining the quality of the panel, while the PMPT introduced here could be set up in a building of a limited area of land where the environment could be well controlled;
Third, the efficiency of solar panels varies seasonally with the intensity of sunlight, while the PMPT would not have this problem;
(2) Wind power, geothermal power, hydropower, and other similar ones: These types of green energy power generation all have high requirements on the natural environment, while the PMPT would not have this problem;
(3) Combustion power generation: This type of power generation would cause too much pollution and also come at high costs, while the PMPT would not have these problems;
(4) Nuclear power generation: In addition to its relatively high costs, this type of power generation often worries the public with its hazardous risk, while the PMPT would not have these problems. Nevertheless, no green energy power plant could replace the portable nuclear reactors where they are needed, and the PMPT would be obviously no exception.
2. Multistory Siphon Power-generation Tower (MSPT) [[5]]
Unlike the PMPT that I introduced above which is designed based on the solid evidences of the realness of the DDWFTTW phenomenon, the second model that I proposed in 2021 for energy generation, the multistory siphon power-generation tower (MSPT), has been designed based on the inspiration of a famous ancient artifact, while the feasibility of the supposed motion for that artifact has not been extensively verified like the DDWFTTW motion, which has brought me strong suspicions and tremendous criticisms from others for the design of this second model.
Nevertheless, as I would elaborate below, although the supporting evidence for the design of this second model might sound a bit shaky, there is no solid evidence against the feasibility of this model either, while this model would have its own worth in case the idea is actually feasible. Here I would briefly list the main issues related to this second model, and more detailed discussion can be found in reference [5].
(1) The archetypical picture
This second model (MSPT) is inspired by a famous ancient artifact called Boyle Self-flowing Flask, for which the only thing we know now is a sketch (Figure 3). It is said to be designed by Robert Boyle about three and a half centuries ago, but no document available showing that Boyle had that flask actually made. More sadly, not sure since when the Boyle self-flowing motion has been discredited as impossible and become a popular example for showing the impossibility of perpetual motion machine, and has even been presented under the title of “hydrostatic paradox” or “capillary bowl”.
Figure 3. Boyle self-flowing flask
(From Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=95851)
(2) The experimental evidence
However, all the denials of the feasibility of the Boyle self-flowing motion have been made based on the failures or analyses by taking water (that is about 800 times as heavy as air) as the fluid for the motion, while there is no written document about what kind of chemical solution that Boyle as the father of modern chemistry had in his mind when he designed that flask, not to mention that the Boyle Self-flowing Flask is obvious neither an apparatus for capillary flow nor for hydrostatic equilibrium. On the other hand, Ivanov demonstrated in several online videos (e.g. [[6]]) that he did establish the Boyle style self-flowing motion by using Coke and beers owing to the foaming effect, even without using the delicately designed Boyle glass tube of varying sectional area as shown in Figure 3 but with thin plastic tube of constant sectional area instead.
To make the matter more complicated, most videos of Ivanov are trickily unreal and I myself have actually identified the tricks of some of his videos. Nevertheless, I have reasons to believe that his videos of Boyle style self-flowing motions with Coke and beers are real, and that became the main experimental evidence for the design of the MSPT (see Figure 4).
Figure 4. Schematic of a Multifloor Siphoning Power Tower
Well, shaky as it sounds, if it does work then it is worth the effort of designing and presenting it given the weight of the issue of energy supply to mankind.
(3) The need of a tower
While for the first model that I introduced earlier, the tower is only for enhancing the power generation performance but not essentially necessary, for this second model of using siphon for power generation, the tower is a must. This is because the height of siphon of any fluid has an upper limit, and thus we need the relay of intermediate layers to hoist the fluid media to a desired height.
(4) The critical role of foaming and the accompanied material consumption
The purpose of using MSPT is to hoist the fluid media to a height by triggering the work of the static atmospheric pressure, with the help the chemical reagents. As long as we can deliver certain fluid media to that target height without extra cost of energy except for the free work of the atmospheric pressure, we don’t care about the composition of the fluid and how severe the fluid is foamed or how much bubbles are in the fluid. Once the fluid media is hoisted to that height, we can de-foam it to the normal density and then discharge it for the power generation. Therefore, foaming the fluid media by chemical means is the most basic condition for the success of MSPT, and thus the operation of MSPT could incur certain basic consumptions, that is, the chemical reagents used for the foaming process. But we could expect that the cost of chemical reagents will be much lower than the material costs of other forms of power generation (e.g. material consumptions for combustion power plants), so it can be regarded as low-cost power generation.
(5) MSPT is not a perpetual motion machine in the strict sense because it uses the work of the atmosphere through siphon when the symmetric balance of the atmospheric pressure being broken through chemical foaming, instead of generating the energy by its own motion like the DDWFTTW vehicle. Nevertheless, since the atmosphere would always be at work as long as the imbalance of the pressure could be created through foaming, and most importantly, since the main media for power generation, the fluid, would be perpetually recycled within the tower structure with the minimal consumption of chemical reagents (for foaming and de-foaming), we might call the MSPT as a (quasi) perpetual motion machine in a broad sense just like the solar panel.
3. Concluding remarks
Both models of power generation introduced here would help to extract energy from the atmosphere. The first model is called as perpetual motion machine because it actually violates the laws of thermodynamics, while the second model does not violate the laws of thermodynamics in any sense.
Despite the above mentioned overwhelming advantages of the first model over the second model, if the second model could be experimental proved viable, it might still potentially have its own worth. This is because the requirement of high productivity always dominates when it comes to the need to satisfy the demand with the supply of electricity. Although the first model could provide free electric power without raw energy cost, there would still be the ceiling of the productivity for a given area of land and the given cost of building the facility. Therefore, the selection between the first and the second models introduced here might be determined by the comparison of their actual productivity for a given size of land and the construction cost plus the necessary operational costs including the human resource cost.
Both the first and the second models introduced here have obvious advantages over all the existing forms of power generation used in the world.
No matter which of the two models that I introduced here would find more applications in the real world, I would still expect that some people would continue trying very hard to find various reasons to tell me that even the first model introduced here is not a perpetual motion power generator because it would not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Well, then let them hold onto their belief of the absolute impossibility of violating the thermodynamics laws. In the past decade, people have been racking brains to find all kinds excuses for how the DDWFTTW motion never violates the laws of thermodynamics. As a result, while so much effort was spent to prove that the DDWFTTW motion did not violate the laws of thermodynamics, no one walked out a small step to think about how to use the DDWFTTW motion for continuously producing free electricity until I provided the design as a simple and direct application of the DDWFTTW motion.
In fact, the recognition that the DDWFTTW vehicle (and thus the PMPT, as the first model introduced in this essay) is the perpetual motion machine in violation of thermodynamics laws would have an impact upon our civilization which would be much more profound and far-reaching than the discovery of new power generation means. It will undoubtedly impact both the natural and social sciences and thus impact the philosophical foundation of our civilization.
Reference
[1] Dai, R. (2021) “Self-feedback Perpetual Motion and Violation of Thermodynamics Laws”. https://www.academia.edu/65569766/Self_feedback_Perpetual_Motion_and_Violation_of_Thermodynamics_Laws
[2] Cavallaro, Rick (2012) “Report for the Submission of Data Supporting WorldRecord Runs in the Category Dead Upwind Vehicle”. Available at http://nalsa.org/BlackBirdDDWSR/UpwindSubmisionReportNALSA.pdf.
[3] Muller, A. Derek. [Veritasium]. D. (May 29, 2021) “Risking My Life To Settle A Physics Debate”[Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyQwgBAaBag
[4] Muller, A. Derek. [Veritasium]. (2021, June 30) “A Physics Prof Bet Me $10,000 I'm Wrong” [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCsgoLc_fzI
[5] Dai, R. (2021) “The Conception of the Multifloor Siphoning Power Tower”. https://www.academia.edu/62862292/The_Conception_of_the_Multifloor_Siphoning_Dynamo_Tower
[6] Ivanov, Valeriy [Munchausen Today] (2012) “Robert Boyle' Flask” [video] youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS1KXMsE2qk
https://www.academia.edu/s/6e7a37577b?source=link