Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitack
|
I think I see what you’re getting at: something like this:

with the tube in the diagram made of the microscopically etched metal in described in the Science Daily article.
Capillary action would draw liquid up, where it could return down via some sort of energy extraction device – the waterwheel and red power take off belt in the diagram.
The problem with this is that capillary effect – be it from everyday devices like household cleaning sponges, blood sampling pipettes, and oil lamp wicks, the natural kinds like sap vessels in plants, or the kind described in the article, perform work by drawing a liquid through a tube or along a surface to where there was formerly no liquid. Once filled with liquid, these devices stop doing work, and require work (energy) to have the liquid expelled, if desired. Many capillary devices are disposable, such as the test strips in a
glucometer, internded for the single-use task of delivering a liquid from one end of a channel to the other. In others, the liquid is expelled using air pressure, such as from a small squeeze bulb. In the case of a lamp wick, the liquid is removed by burning it.
An attempted perpetual motion machine like the one sketched above would fail, because its capillary tube would fill with water, but not release it to return via the waterwheel without outside power greater than the power generate by wheel.
It’s tempting to think that some precisely etched microscopic surface might be able to overcome this failing, but all would be variations on the old perpetual motion machine “ratchet” fallacy, which like most perpetual motion-related fallacies, involves a mechanical device that produces more energy than it consumes.
----------------
Moderator: Computers and Technology; Medical Science; Science Projects and Homework; Philosophy of Science; Physics and Mathematics; Environmental Studies
