A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy

[ayeaye]

I gave a fictional example, just for showing what an asymmetric field is, assuming that all field lines are parallel. You keep saying that no, the field cannot be like this, and i made a mistake. Again i say that it was fictional, and gravitational field cannot be like this, i agree. But it was intentionally fictional, a field which cannot exist, but is simple, so that it would be easier to understand what asymmetric field is. I keep saying this and you keep insisting that i don't understand the gravitational field.

Your skateboard example is an entirely different example, as you are assuming a real gravitational field. So we don't disagree, but be are not talking about the same thing. It may not be possible to achieve overunity because of the asymmetry of the real gravitational anomalies, in the simple way that you propose, because the field configuration then is more complicated. It is easy to show a way how overunity cannot be achieved, and this does not prove that there cannot be overunity. So i cannot see any value of your example, and why you came up with this.

[Zetetic]

Okay.


Shall we move on?





(!)

- Zet

[ayeaye]

I posted this exact picture, with the gravity-like field, in two places where they discuss science, no negative reaction, i don't understand what is going on.

[Zetetic]

We simply disagree.

You have proposed a hypothetical (fictional) thought experiment.

And we disagree about how that hypothetical (fictional) thought experiment would work.

The hypothetical (fictional) element is that there is stronger gravitational field on the left on a weaker gravitational field on the right.

Okay.  I'm fine with this.

However, you also seem to suggest that this gravitational field is unidirectional.  That is, it will pull on things "above" it but it will not pull on things to the "side" of it.

And this is where we disagree.

I do not agree that a gravitational field can be unidirectional.

However, if you want to add a second hypothetical (fictional) element to the thought experiment where "gravity is unidirectional" then, sure, such a device would work.

The magnetic example would also work the same as your gravity example if we also stipulate there that "magnetic attraction is unidirectional."

So ... okay ... sure.  If gravity is unidirectional, then, yes, it would work.

Okay?

Can we move on?  Any ideas about my Conservation of Energy analysis in the link in the OP?

Take care!

- Zet

[ayeaye]

> However, if you want to add a second hypothetical (fictional) element to the thought experiment where "gravity is unidirectional" then, sure, such a device would work.

Yes, this is what i did, and i said it too, why did it take so long for you to understand? So i think we now finally agree in this. It is possible that an asymmetric field can do continuous work, just because it is asymmetric.

> The magnetic example would also work the same as your gravity example if we also stipulate there that "magnetic attraction is unidirectional."

No, this doesn't follow. I didn't assume that magnetic field is unidirectional in the magnetic example. I didn't assume anything there, other than that the configuration of the magnetic field, that is the configuration of the magnets, is such that the magnetic field is asymmetric enough. The way the asymmetry of the field is defined, which in magnets means asymmetry at one pole, or the same asymmetry at both poles.

We started the discussion about my experiment here, because of the theory of it. But this yes splits this thread into talking two theories of overunity, overunity due to asymmetry of a field, and overunity due to switching off of a field, like by the curie temperature. In essence both of these approaches are similar, in that both assume a certain irregularity of the field, that is either asymmetry or then a way to change the field such as shielding or switching it off. The difference is though that, creating an asymmetric magnetic field, the way the asymmetry is defined, looks like possible, but switching it off or shielding it may not be possible by any working and useful means.

What concerns the theory, it is likely not possible to make one equation and say that this equation shows that there is overunity. Like because it depends on a certain configuration of magnets to create a certain asymmetric field. In essence so far it is just saying that the overunity may be possible, and saying the theoretical reasons why, but only the experiments can finally show that there is overunity. So it cannot be shown theoretically by equation, it can only be shown by a model. But then it would still be a question how much that model corresponds to the reality.

I appreciate you talking about my experiments and the theory behind them. But please no more formal fallacies such that you are talking about a different thing than i do, and then ask whether we agree or disagree. And also imply that i am wrong. I don't know whether it's intentional or not. It is not possible to agree or disagree when not talking about the same thing. It is like i am talking about the fence, and you are talking about the hole in the fence. Then when i say that the fence is white, you disagree because the hole in the fence is not white. This is unfair and inevitably gives an impression that the intention is to offend and not discuss.

If you want to continue the discussion of your theory in this thread, then i would suggest to continue the discussion of my experiment in the new thread which i created for it, in the "mechanic" subforum here http://www.overunity.com/15729/overunity-due-to-asymmetry-of-the-magnetic-field/#.VTn_sTr52rM .