A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy

[ayeaye]

Converting potential energy to heat or to any other form of energy other than kinetic energy, this is a problem. We all have a near infinite potential energy, because we can fall into a black hole somewhere. But our interaction with that black hole is almost nonexistent, and we cannot heat our house with it.

Norman, talk it there http://www.overunity.com/15729/overunity-due-to-asymmetry-of-the-magnetic-field/#.VT-43zr52rM if you think that this is also caused by asymmetry of the magnetic field. We only talked about it here because Zetetic is also interested in magnet motors.

About conservation of energy, i don't know why i don't have any feelings about it. It may or may not be, neither of it disturbs me, but it should make me burn, this looks like wrong.

[Zetetic]

ayeaye,



"Everyone has a burden of proof ..." -ayeaye


This is an interesting point.  And I agree with you in general.  However (... I don't know what the right word is ...) in "practicality" we have the burden of proof and not them.

If you or I or someone else in this forum claims to have successfully built a perpetual motion machine (or claims to , as I have , come up with a simple two page argument that disproves (to a logical certainty!) a fundamental Law of Physics) I think it is us who has the burden of proof ... or , at least , the greater burden of proof.

When I walk outside and look around the world is obviously flat.  I can see that I'm not standing on a ball.  And at night when I look up into the sky obviously there is a dome over me with little lights affixed to it.  I can see it.  It's obvious.  And I, and the ground below me, are not in motion.  I can feel it.  It is the Sun that moves across the sky and the moon too.  This is all very obvious.

And so, when fellas like Galileo and Copernicus came along ... you and I can agree that the flat earthers had just as much of a burden of proof as these guys ... but in "practicality" these two had the greater burden of proof.

Everyone back then "knew" the Earth was flat.

And everyone today "knows" that a perpetual motion machine cannot be built and that no one can disprove a fundamental Law of Physics in a simple two page Word for Windows argument using only basic college freshman level Physics concepts.

So ... I agree with you.  I think everyone has, or should have, an equal burden to prove their side ... whether they are on the side of "accepted and known" Physics or whether they are challenging it.

But in practicality, I believe, it is us who carries the greater burden.



"... i think the magnetic field distribution changes, not its strength." – ayeaye

I think you are probably right.

I can't find a link on this that addresses this issue and points to an answer one way or the other.

My point is if there are two ways to fashion an argument, and if both are equally logically sound, but one leads to potentially "unfounded" counterclaims by the other party while the other argument avoids this, then (I believe) it is better to go with the latter argument.

In my everyday life I deal with people who say crazy incorrect stuff all the time.  And if I want to convince them that they are wrong I have to find a way to make my case that counters or avoids their crazy incorrect counterarguments.  Just because I think (and just because I'm right) that what they are saying is wrong doesn't' mean that I can convince them they are wrong.



"So maybe you are trying impossible ..." – ayeaye

I hope not.

Maybe it is impossible to show mainstream Physicists that the "Law" of Conservation of Energy is flawed and therefore people working on perpetual motion machines are not just fools who are wasting their time trying to wish water into wine.

I'm going to try (... I may ultimately fail, I have failed a lot in my many years here on this planet ...) but I'm going to keep trying.


-


smOky2,


"There is a mass of thermo-chemical mixture attached to the moving magnet in one system, which adds to the kinetic energy of that system. This is not accounted for in the example. (see above)" - smOky2


Right.

In my "casual" description of my argument against the Law of Conservation of Energy I may not have made it clear that the chemical heat packs are at rest.  When the "moving magnet" is demagnetized this is done so when is it near and moving past the chemical heat pack.

If the chemical heat packs where to be moving with the magnet, as you have noted, this would add to the mass.

Here is the link (the same link as in the OP) to the carefully worded description of this argument:  http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87489-a-magnet-is-demagnetized/page-2



" It would be more clear to state that, when the one magnet is demagnetized, the mutual attraction aspect of the field interactions begins to collapse from both ends, and over time dissipates or approaches 0 near or at the center point between the two attracting fields. The influence on the shape of the field of the still magnetized magnet takes some time to realign, but there is not an actual "attraction" during this (very short) time."  - smOky2

I don't agree with you.

The changes in a magnetic field take time to cross that field.

"... if a giant, huge, powerful magnet appeared one light year away out of nowhere, then it would take exactly one year for magnets on Earth to feel its pull (however small it may be). That is, it would take one year for the "magnetic force" to reach the Earth."

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5839/does-magnetic-propagation-follow-the-speed-of-light

"... and is defined to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s in vacuum (same as the speed of light)."

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae445.cfm

"... light is a propagation of electric and magnetic fields. So, if magnetic fields propagated faster than the speed of light, then light would also move faster than the speed of light. That is to say, they don't."

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=62899



When the one magnet is demagnetized and so the magnetic field goes from one where the two magnets are mutually attracted to one where they are not, this change in the field takes time to make its way across the field and to still magnetized magnet.

This means the still magnetized magnet remains attracted to the now demagnetized magnet for a while longer.  If the loss of mutual attraction where to make its way across the field to the still magnetized magnet instantly, then this would mean that this change would occur faster than the speed of light.  If you are right (and, again, I don't agree with you) then you have just found a violation of the Special Theory of Relativity and you have disproved this "Law" of Physics.


-


Nixon,


"... one has high loss due to friction ..." - Nixon


You can assume no friction in my thought experiment.  (Whether there is or is not friction, it doesn't really change the argument.)



-



Norman,

"Where did the energy come from that lifts the pendulum past 10 oclock?" – Norman

You can make a pendulum with gravity and you can make a pendulum with magnets (as you did).

If you make a pendulum with one moveable magnet and with one fixed in place magnet, and if there is no friction, then the moving magnet will end up at the same "height" (the same distance from the fixed magnet) on the other side as it started (two o'clock to ten o'clock).  (See the left side of the drawing below.)

However, if you also have additional attractive magnets on the other side and none on the side where it starts (see the right side of the drawing below) then the moving magnet will reach a greater "height" (two o'clock to twelve o'clock) on the other side.  And there is no violation (sadly) of the Law of Conservation of Energy.  It's simply that you went from a place with a small amount of magnetic attraction (two o'clock) to a place with more magnetic attraction (twelve o'clock).

Yes?  No?

Have I understood your proposal correctly?



-



ayeaye,

"We all have a near infinite potential energy, because we can fall into a black hole somewhere." - ayeaye


I agree with what you are saying.

But this is not how mainstream Physics deals with the concept of "potential energy."

Potential energy, for them, is a matter of designation.  And they typically designate 0 potential energy to be the greatest amount of potential energy possible and so everything else (every lesser amount of potential energy) is a negative quantity.

And so, what a mainstream Physicists would likely say to this comment of yours is that "no there is not an infinite amount of potential energy between you and the black hole but rather 0 amount of potential energy between you and it and as you get closer, and so the amount of potential energy between you and the black hole decreases, the amount of potential energy then becomes – 10 units of potential energy, and then – 100 units of potential energy, and then – 1000 units ... and so on and so on."

Again, this is not my argument.  It is theirs.

And so, if I want to prove that the Law of Conservation of Energy is flawed and therefore wrong (... which I do ...) then I need to craft an argument that stays away from this stuff (... which I have).


"About conservation of energy, i don't know why i don't have any feelings about it. It may or may not be, neither of it disturbs me, but it should make me burn, this looks like wrong." - ayeaye


If the Law of Conservation of Energy is true (if the total amount of energy in the Universe is always constant) then every attempt in this forum to build a perpetual motion machine (a device where less energy is put into it and more energy comes out of it) is a total waste of time (including your Field lines chain motor 4/4) and nothing more than regular old non-godlike humans, such as ourselves, trying to wish water into wine.


-


Thank you all (ayeaye, smOky2, Nixon, Norman) for continuing this conversation!




Take care!

- Zet






(PS:  Oops.  I edited this because  I made a mistake and attributed a smOky2 quote to ayeaye.  Oops.  Sorry.)

[norman6538]

Norman,

"Where did the energy come from that lifts the pendulum past 10 oclock?" – Norman

You can make a pendulum with gravity and you can make a pendulum with magnets (as you did).

If you make a pendulum with one moveable magnet and with one fixed in place magnet, and if there is no friction, then the moving magnet will end up at the same "height" (the same distance from the fixed magnet) on the other side as it started (two o'clock to ten o'clock).  (See the left side of the drawing below.)

However, if you also have additional attractive magnets on the other side and none on the side where it starts (see the right side of the drawing below) then the moving magnet will reach a greater "height" (two o'clock to twelve o'clock) on the other side.  And there is no violation (sadly) of the Law of Conservation of Energy.  It's simply that you went from a place with a small amount of magnetic attraction (two o'clock) to a place with more magnetic attraction (twelve o'clock).

Yes?  No?

Have I understood your proposal correctly?



No, a normal pendulum never goes past its dropped point.  But this one does. so given
the law of conservation of energy where did the energy come from to make it go
2 extra hours past the dropped point? very simple question.
It demonstrates to me that there is something beyond the law of conservaton of energy.


Norman

[Zetetic]

Norman,



Yes.  I did not address your specific question:  Where does the energy come from to move the pendulum past its "drop point"?



The answer is that there is "potential energy" between the moveable magnet and the magnet at six o'clock and there is also "potential energy" between the moveable magnet and every other magnet in your system.

When the magnet moves from its starting position, two o'clock, to the magnet at six o'clock, the potential energy between the two magnets at the start decreases and its velocity (kinetic energy) increases.  The loss of potential energy is equal to the increase in kinetic energy plus the loss to thermal energy (due to friction).

And then the moveable magnet moves onto the other magnets.  As the moveable magnet moves onto the other magnets and away from the magnet at six o'clock the attraction between the moveable magnet and the six o'clock magnet will tend to slow it down.  And if these were the only two magnets in the system then it would be slowed down and brought to a stop short of ten o'clock.  (It would reach ten o'clock if there was no friction, but since this is a real world model with friction it would stop short.)

However, these are not the only two magnets in your system (if I've understood your video correctly).  After the moveable magnet passes the magnet at six o'clock and so is slowed down by moving away from it, the moveable magnet is also moving towards other magnets.  As it move towards these other magnets the potential energy it has with these other magnets is transformed into kinetic energy (and thermal energy due to friction).

And so, while the attraction with the magnet at six o'clock will slow it down as it "rises" on the other side, the attraction with the other magnets will speed it up.  In other words, overall, it will not slow down as much.

And so, since it is deceleration more slowly on the second side than it accelerated on the first side it will reach a point "higher" than where it started (twelve o'clock).

The answer to "where does the energy come from to pass ten o'clock?" is it comes from the potential energy between the moveable magnet and the other magnets on the second side.  This potential energy is converted to kinetic energy and the moveable magnet thus passes ten o'clock.




Think of it this way.  Say you have a magnet taped to the underside of your desk, and on your desk you have a magnet glued to a plastic toy car.  If you set the car and magnet some distance from the taped magnet and then let the car go it will move towards the taped magnet and then past it.  And, if there was no friction it will move the same distance past the taped magnet as from where it started.  Here we have potential energy (at the start) being turned into kinetic energy (which reaches its peak when the two magnets are closest together) and then kinetic energy turned back into potential energy (as the car come to a stop on the other side).  Now, say we did this again, but this time we also tape a second magnet under the desk and on the far side of the first magnet from where the toy car and magnet start.  The toy car and magnet will again move past the first magnet, but his time it will move a greater distance than from where it started.  It will do this because there is potential energy between the magnet on the toy car and both of the magnets taped under the table.  (And if the first magnet taped under the table is stronger than the second magnet taped under the table, then after the toy car moves the greater distance on the far side than from where it started, it will then return to the point closest to the first taped magnet, as it appears is happening with your pendulum in you video.)

The energy to reach twelve o'clock comes from potential energy.  And, at all times, energy is conserved.



Yes?  No?

Am I still not getting your point?

Let me know!




Cheers!

- Zet

[norman6538]

Zet - you are the only one who has even been curious enough to try an answer. So
congradulations but a few things. Each magnet is the same strength. The positions
are very critical or it will not perform well. The pendulum is not vertical but slanted up about 20 degrees. That matches the gravity force with the magnetic force.
there are magnets on the pendulum that are 90 degrees to the flat magnets from six oclock to midnight.
Then the next big question is why does the magnet go faster clockwise and slower when dropping back down counterclockwise? I think its about the direction of spin in the magnetic field that sorta makes the Lenz counter to motion force when dropping counterclockwise.

Truely the excess energy comes from the magnets. Of all the magnets I have worked
with the attracting force is always less than the holding back force when the magnet
passes center or else the pendulum would speed up as it goes by center.

The only potential energy I see is in the magnets attraction force.
Potential energy is introduced when the pendulum is lifted up to 2 oclock
and that is all used up before it reaches 10 oclock....

One of the unique parts of this setup is several magnets from 6 oclock to midnight.
A little bit of spin added energy from each one and you get 2 extra hours of travel.

Zet - you are very much awake while thousands are still sleeping.

Norman