Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[tinman]

No, the issue here is mesuring the energy that it takes to get the car to some speed versus the continuous power required to keep the car going at that speed given windage, tyre rolling losses, etc.  The PM oriented one way yields a higher field, but that higher field does not come for free.  Conversely, if you reverse the PM you end up with a weaker field and that field costs less energy to establish.  The PM does not add energy in the former case, nor does it destroy energy in the latter case.  You are not evaluating the energy required to set-up the field. 

  If the ball were to reach the same apogee cycle after cycle, or successively higher apogees then things would be very interesting.

On the bouncing ball:  A cycle starts at the ball's apogee.  As you note, each successive apogee is lower and lower due to losses.  Each cycle begins with a given gravitational potential energy and over the course of that cycle, the potential at the end is less than at the beginning.  The ball only bounces because GPE converts to KE during the fall and then into potential energy in the stress of the ball material on impact and then back into KE as the ball pushes away from the ground, and finally GPE as it reaches its new apogee.

Thank you MarkE
Did you get that Spilled Fluids.
Do you understand that when the bottom of the ball contacts the ground,it stop's moving,but the top of the ball continues down. This pushes the sides of the ball outward,and this now become's potential energy. When the top of the ball stops moving,the ball now stores the energy(potential energy),and that stored energy is the same as the energy required to lift the ball to it's starting height-minus losses like sound/vibration,wind/air resistance. As soon as the sides of the ball start to contract,the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy-the point of motion. The ball then leaves the ground,and is raised as high as the stored energy within that ball allows.

[tinman]

I know, please reread my post, you apparently missed my point...

Irregardless of whether the EM is an EM or a PM, and as well, irregardless of whether the "block" is ferrite or a PM, is work being performed during any period of time during which the system is "stationary"?

PW

No work is being done while the system is stationary in either case,unless you wish to take produced heat as work being done-which proves my point even further.If we are to take heat output from the coil,and also added the work done on the spring,then regardless of time,the total work done over that time is more with the PM in place.

[picowatt]

No work is being done while the system is stationary in either case,unless you wish to take produced heat as work being done-which proves my point even further.If we are to take heat output from the coil,and also added the work done on the spring,then regardless of time,the total work done over that time is more with the PM in place.

So, if we ignore the heat generated and only consider the work performed applying tension to the spring scale, do we agree that it is only during the time period during which the tension is changing that counts as work?

PW

[synchro1]

A laser beam.  Once again you fail.

@MarkE,

A laser beam is not an electrical current. We were discussing voltage potential between charged capacitor plates.

[MarkE]

No work is being done while the system is stationary in either case,unless you wish to take produced heat as work being done-which proves my point even further.If we are to take heat output from the coil,and also added the work done on the spring,then regardless of time,the total work done over that time is more with the PM in place.

So:  We all agree that no work is being done on the spring except when the magnet is initially energized, right?  So: Do we also agree that the input energy we want to measure is NOT during the static interval, but the initial interval when work is being performed on the spring?