Can you see if it will work as advertised?
(Explanation starts at 40 seconds and ends at 1:36.)
Perpetuum mobiles violate the first or second law of thermodynamics so scientists scoff at them. But often it is not trivial to prove a specific perpetuum mobile will not work.
In this case though it's analogous to an old idea that's already been disproven called the float belt.
The idea (just like with energy towers) is that you insert a body that is lighter than water at depth and then harvest the power of the body floating upwards. physics.stackexchange.com/questions/556/…
But the insertion is where things go wrong.
Inserting the body into the bottom of a high column of water requires much more energy than inserting it at the top of the column. So much more that it exactly cancels out the energy that is produced when floating to the surface.
Energy towers adds an interesting sleight of hand by suggesting that this problem goes away using their 'ingenious' design of two communicating vessels, focussing our attention on the movement of the two pistons and how they can move without using energy.
But that sleight of hand using the pistons is just a distraction.
The energy is still lost because one piston pumps up it's volume of water *MINUS THE FLOATING VESSEL* while the lower *THE ENTIRE VOLUME*.
So, nope, this Energy Towers perpetuum mobile will not work either.
Apologies for the rude awakening to those who actually believed this. But I'm pretty angry at the irresponsible businessmen who want to make a buck by lying to people about something as important as the clean energy we need to power our civilization.
Fortunately the earth still intercepts many thousands of times the energy we need from the sun. It will 'only' last a few billion years but that means it's basically a de-facto perpetuum mobily on human time scales. And a pretty big one too. Hooray!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Miracle cure eFuels comes to the rescue of the German car industry! That is what I understand from the recent reactions in German politics. E.g. from @_FriedrichMerz (@CDU) as discussed by @Stefan_Hajek in @wiwo.
You see, it IS eminently possible to power the trusted combustion engine with fuels that are produced using low carbon electricity. That's not the problem.
The problem is that you need A LOT MORE ENERGY while propping up an engine whose only advantage is that it can burn stuff.
Let's look at that engine first. Don't get me wrong: Germany should be proud at the heights to which it has taken this extremely complex marvel of engineering. The electric motor is simple by comparison. But also better on all fronts.
In the Netherlands there is much ado about a new ENCO study showing NUCLEAR is cheap. It apparently convinced more than half of parliament. But it is riddled with errors and was rushed through without any check. If the errors are corrected the conclusion reverses. (short thread)
The same ministry (@MinisterieEZK) commissioned a peer reviewed study earlier this year (by Kalavasta) that showed nuclear is more expensive.
Why did they commission this new non-peer reviewed study from a group that is mainly doing nuclear security studies?
Fortunately the writers of the Kalavasta study already reacted to the new pro-nuclear ENCO study. They point out the main problems with the new study that are glaringly obvious for most experts.
First of all, @Mike_Page is right that electric motors are actually more efficient at turning calories into motion than humans. So if we would replace heavy electric trucks with an army of cyclists, this would indeed not be good for the climate and require too much food.
Second of all, I think it's probably true when you compare an electric bike to a car but the 30g/km for a vegan like me is clearly less than for an electric car (~50g/km for manufacturing plus ~40g/km for driving in the EU) and you have to add my CO2 emissions as car driver.