A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy

[Zetetic]

hey ayeaye ...


"I meant asymmetry in the sense that, if we draw a sphere around the center of the field, and we draw a plane through the center of the field, then at one side of that plane more field lines cross that sphere, than at the other side. A sphere so that the radius of the sphere is the distance at which the object, such as a pole of another magnet, passes the center of the field (center of the pole). Then when the field lines bend, at that distance there are more field lines at one side of that plane than at the other side of that plane. This description may be clumsy, but this is by now the only way to say what i mean." –ayeaye



Is the moving object moving around the curved sphere?

That's all I got.

I read the above quote three times.  I don't think I understand much of it.  And, therefore, only one small question is all I could come up with.

The drawing in one of your videos, I believe it was in 4/4, really helped me understand your machine.

Could you please draw out the concept in the above quote?  That would be cool.

"I only talked about a single pole. At the other pole, like in my experiment, the situation is reverse, more attraction when entering and less when leaving. So when the magnet gets more kinetic energy after going over the first pole, then it also gets an additional kinetic energy before going over the other pole. So there we may look at only one pole, what happens at the other pole is reverse." – ayeaye

Maybe I'll understand this better ... after seeing the drawing.  Right now I feel like I'm applying my understanding about magnetism to your words about magnetism ... and that leads us straight to confusion.

So ... I'll wait for the drawing (... if there is one coming ... ? ... I hope).

"Rubberized magnets is a good idea. They may be a great substitute of the small rectangular ceramic magnets in my experiment. Because these magnets must be weak, but almost all magnets which they sell are stronger." –ayeaye

The important thing to remember when buying rubberized magnets is that most commercial applications prefer to use such magnets with multiple poles per side ("multipole magnets").  They do sell rubberized magnets that has one pole on one side the pole on the other side (and they come in the dimensions I listed above ... or at least they did years ago; "monopole").  And our type of type of pmm experiments typically call for "monopole" rubberized magnets cut up and reconfigured.

And, yes, the rubberized magnets I used were much weaker than a regular old ceramic magnet.

Cool.

"In the gravity example, it was not a missing part of my analyze, but rather that i thought about a different way of using the energy than you. I thought about a kind of machine, using a vertical piston on spring or such, so that repeatedly moving into the area of higher gravity and out of there, this machine can constantly generate energy." – ayeaye

My skateboarding friend agrees to do me a favor.  (I'm an old man.  If I tried to do this, I'd break my legs.)  He goes to the store and buys a very large industrial spring.  He places in my back yard, on the north end of my backward, by the skateboard ramp.  He then climbs up to the top of the ramp, without his skateboard, and jumps off from the 10 feet and lands on the large industrial spring.

The spring compresses and he locks it is place.  The spring is then rolled across the grass in my backyard, horizontally to direction of the gravitational field, to another friend waiting at the other end, the south end, of the ramp.  She sets the compressed spring on the ground and climbs on top of it.  She and the other skater both weight the exact same amount.  She then unreleases the compressed spring and she is set into motion upwards.

Where she is, the south side of my back yard, the gravity is weaker than where the spring was compressed, on the north side of my backyard. 

And so ... she will reach a higher height.

In the end (in our closed system of the Universe) there is more gravitational potential energy (gpe) than at the start.

Yes.  This is true.  Is that what you are getting at with the idea of "springs"?  Yes?  No?  Something else?

If so ... energy is conserved.

It took energy to roll the grass skateboard from north (stronger graviatational pull on the board and compressed spring) to the south (weaker g pull) and this will be exactly (.... yes, exactly, not a little more not a little less ... according to the Law of Conservation of Energy ...) the same as the amount of energy in increased gpe (height of chick on the south side at the end minus height of the dude on the north end at the start).

And pushing the board and spring into motion like this means using up energy and increased gpe is an energy gain.  And ... so ... since the two amounts of energy are exactly the same (according to this well established and basic Law of Physics) and since one is a negative and the other is a positive ... then they cancel each other out in terms of the total amount of energy within the Universe.  The total amount remains the same , while some of the forms have changed.

Or ... did I totally miss what you are trying to get at with springs?

"Your skateboard example was maybe better. But also if we have a large vertical wheel with a single weight on it, and this wheel is positioned so that half of it is in higher gravity and the other half of it is in lower gravity, then this wheel will continuously rotate." – ayeaye

I believed this.  And ... perhaps its important to believe this ... somewhere along the way.  I think I believed it for a few days ... maybe a week.  It was back in the early days of pmm for me.  After you learn the concept you can apply it in all sorts of different places.

The concept in the original skateboarding example is the same concept in the above quote as to why this does not lead to an energy gain is the same.

However, if it was a frictionless world, yes, it will spin continuously.  But there is no energy gain.  It just spins like anything would spin, in a frictionless world, forever (no gravity needed).

However, if you're thinking about getting an energy gain from this.  Nope.  It doesn't happen.  Again, I believed in this for a week or so.

As the weight swings along the bottom of the wheel, down towards gravity and also moving horizontally, it is both moving into the greater gravitational field of the Earth below but also into the lesser gravitational field along the horizontal, and so there will both be a tendency to accelerate and to decelerate (and one might be greater than the other but this will be balanced out by the equal imbalance in the inverse on the other, swinging up along the bottom of the wheel, side.  (And a similar inverse dynamic occurs on the top between the two sides.))

And when I realized this, lo all those many years ago, I stop believing in what I had believed in , for a week or so.

It's a cool idea.  I love it.

"I meant when there are less field lines at the distance from the center of the field at which the pole of the other magnet enters the field. When the field lines are bent, then it may also be because of that." – ayeaye

Yeah, it's beyond me.  I thought I was a smart guy ... but I can't get this stuff.

I think maybe the drawing I requested (... if you've got the time ...) could really help.

"No. It certainly loses some speed when it goes into the repulsion at one side of the pole, but its speed increases more than that loss of speed, at the other side of the pole, when the field is asymmetric." – ayeaye

Right.  I did it again.

I used my understanding of the magnetic concepts we are working with with your words.  Damn it.  I did it again.

You are right to say "No" to me.

My quote (the quote of me) in your last response was me thinking of a symmetrical magnetic field.  So ... I stand by what I wrote.  What I said is true when dealing with a symmetrical magnetic field.  (You can have asymmetrical magnetic fields in terms of non mirrored shaped of fields at the poles, but I was thinking about a symmetrical field when I wrote what you quoted.  My bad.)

And, further, I think we need to talk more about your design 4/4 particularly in regards to what I think I'm reading in the above quote (and also based on, comparison, with what you built in 4/4).

Are you thinking that in 4/4 you can move from one magnet to the next and not get the same repulsion resistance you got at the start (to get the magnet into its starting position) in 3/4?  If so, that's true.

But are you also thinking that you retain in 4.4 the same counterclockwise push from the magnets (the now circle of magnets) that you got from the magnets (the curved row of magnets) in 3.4?  If so, then I don't agree with you.

And that's cool.  We can agree to disagree.  My opinion (... my analysis ...) of why I think you get the results you get in 3.4 are already posted in a previous post and don't need to be repeated here.

I think when you go from 3.4 to 4.4 you lose both the resistance you felt with you hand in 3.4 and the leftward rotation you saw in 3.4 (... I should say , they both diminish not that you lose both).

But, that's just my opinion.

"The mere fact that there is overunity, which means that the output energy is greater than the known input energy, is not enough to say that there is a violation of conservation of energy" – ayeaye

Yes it is.

"Because some energy may come from an unknown source." – ayeaye

If you're hinting at something like God or interdimensional beings or any other para-physics concept ... I'm down for that.

But ... the Law of Conservation of Energy is about our physical universe.  If God where to poke into our physical dimension give the skateboarder a little extra push ... so that on the other end he will go a little higher ... and thus end up with more gpe in the end than at the start, ... if this were to happen then we would no longer have a "closed system."  Energy was introduced in from the outside.  And, so, yeah, sure if you introduce more energy into a system from an "unknown source" then there will be more energy in that system in the end.  This is axiomatic.

But maybe this isn't what your saying?  I don't know.  I too a shot at it.  Maybe I've totally misunderstood you.

I'm trying!

Take care my on line brother in the quest for pmm (or whatever term you prefer to use) ,



- Zet

 

(PS:  Sorry ayeaye, I didn't have time to proof read it.  And I'm a terrible speller and such.)

[ayeaye]

Zetetic,

Ok, drawings, first is about asymmetric field in general, and second is about an asymmetric gravitational field. What concerns the gravitational field, you may consider that there the sphere i talked about, is very big, so we may consider that there the field lines are parallel.

Again, this constantly rotating wheel in the gravitational field is not possible in reality, because the gravitational field is not asymmetric anywhere. This is only an abstract thought experiment to show that it is possible to extract energy from an asymmetric field, just because the field is asymmetric. Again, this is only a kind of mathematically so, in the reality the energy in that case may come from some other source, and there is no violation of the conservation of energy.

This is not about pmm (permanent magnet motors) only, this is more theoretical. When overunity is possible because the magnetic field is asymmetric, then it may be possible also elsewhere where magnetic field appears. Electric field may be asymmetric too, as magnetic field.

You should consider that my drawing ability is not good. I have a logical thinking and not visual thinking, so my visual capabilities are poor. So take them as they are.

[Zetetic]

ayeaye,


Thank you for the drawings!


(BTW:  I like your drawings.  I always find them very helpful.)



First, if I may, let's start with your second drawing (in Reply #21) and the concept therein.

In drawing E below, the skateboarder is pulled downward at E.1 due to gravitational attraction.  As he does so he accelerates.  And, in that same drawing, the skateboarder is also pulled downward at E.3 due to gravitational attraction.  But here, as he is moving upwards, he decelerates.

Since the force of gravity is greater at E.1 than it is at E.3, the speed that he reaches at the bottom of E.1 is greater than the speed he needs at E.3 to reach (and exceed) the height from which he started (at E.1).

I believe you and I agree about this.  Yes?  No?

However, as he moves across the horizontal (from the E.1 side to the E.3 side) he is moving against (away from) the greater gravitational field.  As he moves horizontally he decelerates.  E.2 is the exact same thing as if he was moving "up" and away from the strength of Earth's gravitational field.  And when he moves "up" he decelerates.  Here to, E.2, he will decelerate as he moves horizontally.

So, when he starts to rise at the far end of the ramp (E.3) he starts out at a slower speed than he reached when at the bottom of first side of the ramp (E.1).

Yes, there is less deceleration when he moves up against a lesser gravitational field than there was acceleration when he moved down in a greater gravitational field.  But, he has already slowed down while moving from E.1 to E.3.

This is what I think is (this is what I have called) "your oversight."

Yes?  No?

I get the impression that you are thinking that if you move from a greater gravitational field to a lesser gravitation field horizontally that there is no deceleration (as there is when you move from a greater gravitational field to a lesser gravitational field upwards).

Yes?  No?

And the same exact thing is true with a round wheel.

In drawing F the same thing happens.  Yes, there is more acceleration at F.1 than there is deceleration at F.3.  Yes.  But there is also deceleration as the weight moves horizontally (F.2). 

The difference between the two examples is that in the skateboard example the vertical movements and the horizontal movement are separated out.  But the same thing is happening with the round wheel.  It's just that with the round wheel the vertical movements and the horizontal movement always occur together.

But it's the same thing.

(BTW:  My analysis above and my analysis of the same in Reply #20 get to the basic point, but ... after thinking about it for a while, the Conservation of Energy analysis is much more complex.  If you are lower in a stronger gravitational field and higher in a weaker gravitation field you have the same amount of "gravitational potential energy."  I'm sorry about this mistake.  I make them all the time.  But this limited (and somewhat incorrect) analysis is better for what we are talking about right now, I think.  That further complexity is not needed, and, in fact, I think right now would be a distraction.)

The wheel in your second drawing in Reply #21 will not gain in energy.  It is not the basis of an OU device.  I love it.  I've thought about it too.  But the mechanics needed are just not there.  There is a decrease in velocity in both the skateboard ramp and in the round wheel with weight as they move horizontally against the force (the horizontal force) of gravity.

Yes?  No?

-

I have a better understanding of your idea in the first drawing.  Thank you for that.  But, before we move onto that (which I think perhaps is the crux of your thinking behind 3/4 and 4/4) I want to make sure we first understand one another about the second drawing and what I've said.  (And, if so, then we can get to the more interesting stuff and your pmm attempt!)

-

Please let me know that you think.  Please let me know if I have understood you (and your "oversight") or if I'm wrong (if I'm the one with the "oversight") about what you are saying!

Take care.


- Zet

[ayeaye]

Zetetic,

I don't understand why do you keep saying that the horizontal deceleration removes all the additional speed, i don't understand that.

Whether the wheel starts to rotate and how fast it rotates, only depends on the difference of the strength of the gravitational field in the areas of higher gravity and lower gravity. When that difference is great, the wheel certainly starts to rotate. Also when there is friction, so yes it can provide energy.

If this helps you to understand better, think about a vertical wheel, you put a small ball on it, and you blow air to it from above. If the flow of air is much stronger at the left side, where the gravitational field is stronger on the drawing, than at the right side, then the wheel starts to rotate counterclockwise, right? This is the same as the wheel in the asymmetric gravitational field, only the ball there is instead of the weight. This is an experiment which one can do, and see that it works. But if this doesn't help you to understand better, then better forget it, i didn't write it to add confusion.

[Zetetic]

ayeaye,



I think I talk too much.

Okay.  My many many words don't seem to have expressed the idea I was trying to express.

Okay.




Here is a real world experiment.  And you already have the rotating disk and the magnets.  (See the drawing below.)

On the rotating disk attach a magnet.  And then either tilt a bar magnet relative to the disk as shown in the drawing below or stack and glue a larger bar magnet and a small bar magnet together and place them relative to the disk as shown in the drawing below.

(The important thing is that the poles of the magnet on the disk and the poles of the bar magnet(s) are oppositely and therefore attractively aligned.)

There is more magnetic pull on the left side of the disk toward the bar magnets and less magnetic pull on the right side of the disk towards the bar magnets in both cases.

Yes?  No?

And this the magnetic equivalent of what we've been talking about with more downward gravitational pull on one side of a wheel and less downward gravitational pull on the other side of that wheel.

Yes?  No?

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the magnet on the left side disk will spin towards the bar magnet and then back away from the bar magnet on the right side.  And it will spin farther away on the right side than it started on the left side (minus, of course, friction).

Yes?  No?



Take care and let me know,


- Zet