A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy

[norman6538]

Norman, how does your device really work? You should draw a diagram, for there to be anything to talk about.

Is it just a chain, where every next magnet is further from the center (if it works with attraction, or closer to the center when it works with repulsion)? Such chains are known, and they work because of potential energy as Zetetic said, no overunity.


ayeaye
If I really knew how it worked I'd draw it. The magnets are pretty symetrical not
closer closer.  As I recall if you position the magnet near any magnet it will just
get stuck there.  So you can see its a mystery to me....

Norman

[sm0ky2]

its actually a lot harder than one may think to make the field of such arrays perfectly symmetrical.
you can measure down to the micrometer, but the field responds to the nanometer. perfect machining comes real close, but the average build at home project, not so much....

asymmetry does not matter in most situations. The asymmetrical field is still inversely proportional. +/-, it all balances out in the end.

[ayeaye]

The asymmetrical field is still inversely proportional. +/-, it all balances out in the end.

No. The poles are inverse, yes, but they are inverse in a way that when the asymmetry at one pole gives additional energy, the asymmetry at the other pole gives additional energy too. Because of symmetry between the poles, they don't compensate each other in that respect, but both add to the effect. It is a symmetry, the same which is true for repulsion at one pole, is true for the attraction at the other pole. Like less repulsion when entering and more repulsion when exiting at one pole, usually means more attraction when entering, and less attraction when exiting, at the other pole, in case of asymmetry such as in my field lines chain. And this is exactly because of symmetry between poles.

This asymmetry of poles is caused by more field lines between the poles, less between the magnets, and these between the magnets somewhat directed away. Not a great asymmetry, but there is some asymmetry, and by experiments this seems to be enough to provide some overunity, not much overunity. Because of that arrangement of magnets, the field is symmetric between the poles, and this adds to the effect.

But this is yes a very subtle thing, the magnets have to be placed rightly, and be of right strength, for field to be asymmetric. Most importantly the magnets have to be weak, so that there is not too much interaction between them. The stator magnet at that can be stronger. It's so in my experiment, but there may be other arrangements.

When going only through one pole, there may even be a piece of iron instead of magnet. This complex continuously rotating magnet device that i saw, had iron balls going through the magnetic field of a magnet, by some weird trajectory. I think this was using the asymmetry of the magnetic field as well. The device rotated continuously, but could do only that, it was not powerful enough to extract any energy from that.

Norman,

Yes, the rotor magnet can get stuck at every magnet of the attraction gate array. It will not if it goes over them with speed, but finally it will be stuck at the last magnet of the array.

But i don't know what your device is. It looks like attraction gate array, but then it does not stick to the end position, which is weird. It may be overunity, but without knowing what it is, this cannot be decided either. Because it can be whatever, like some spring inside the rotor can do the thing, even when there are magnets. A complete data about a thing like this has to be available, so that it can be replicated. Otherwise even if it is something great, it is worthless as an experiment.

Array, i often call it chain. But i also mean something deeper by chain, an array of magnets, and how their poles are connected with field lines. This, magnetic gate array, doesn't form though what i call the "field lines chain". Because the magnets in that array repulse each other, and field lines don't form a chain.

[ayeaye]

Norman,

Your experiment nevertheless made me to think. Maybe overunity should be defined without potential energy after all. Because potential energy, by everything it implies, is so confusing concept. Potential energy is not the same as potential to get energy, because the latter implies less. But potential energy implies things which have no meaning in every asymmetric field, at least not in every imaginable asymmetric field. So then, overunity could be defined as less energy in, more energy out, so that it can be repeated. In case of dropping iron balls to magnet this is not true, because iron balls are a limited resource, and we eventually run out of it.

I mean i thought, if it's really an attractive magnetic gate array. Which is made to be minimal, so that it works only when the rotor has some speed. And then it doesn't stick in the end because the gravity pulls it back. Does it really work? I have not tried it. If it really is that and it does work, then it's overunity, because there is a process with more energy out than energy in, and this process can be repeated. And again yes, not enough for continuous rotating, or continuous swinging there i guess. But this is not a necessary criterion for overunity.

So when this device really works like that, then it works by a slightly different principle than my experiment. I looked at only one field, and when there is only one field, then for overunity it has to be irregular. That is asymmetric, shielded, or possible to change or switch off by small energy. The last two as much as i know are not true for magnets, so only asymmetry remains. Though i'm not entirely sure. So my device works because of asymmetry of the magnetic field.

But your device, if it is what i guessed it may be, works differently. Because there are two fields, magnetic field and gravity, working at the same time. Both i assume are symmetric. The gravity field and all the magnetic fields there are symmetric, that is. So two different symmetric fields may also provide overunity. Because they may provide the irregularity which a single symmetric field cannot provide. So the potential energy concept may be entirely true only in a single symmetric field. This is interesting, if true.

[sm0ky2]

No. The poles are inverse, yes, but they are inverse in a way that when the asymmetry at one pole gives additional energy, the asymmetry at the other pole gives additional energy too. Because of symmetry between the poles, they don't compensate each other in that respect, but both add to the effect. It is a symmetry, the same which is true for repulsion at one pole, is true for the attraction at the other pole. Like less repulsion when entering and more repulsion when exiting at one pole, usually means more attraction when entering, and less attraction when exiting, at the other pole, in case of asymmetry such as in my field lines chain. And this is exactly because of symmetry between poles.

This asymmetry of poles is caused by more field lines between the poles, less between the magnets, and these between the magnets somewhat directed away. Not a great asymmetry, but there is some asymmetry, and by experiments this seems to be enough to provide some overunity, not much overunity. Because of that arrangement of magnets, the field is symmetric between the poles, and this adds to the effect.

But this is yes a very subtle thing, the magnets have to be placed rightly, and be of right strength, for field to be asymmetric. Most importantly the magnets have to be weak, so that there is not too much interaction between them. The stator magnet at that can be stronger. It's so in my experiment, but there may be other arrangements.

When going only through one pole, there may even be a piece of iron instead of magnet. This complex continuously rotating magnet device that i saw, had iron balls going through the magnetic field of a magnet, by some weird trajectory. I think this was using the asymmetry of the magnetic field as well. The device rotated continuously, but could do only that, it was not powerful enough to extract any energy from that.

There are always the same number of "lines", what goes in, must come out. Every N needs a S to travel around its' loop.
In an asymmetrical configuration, they are closer together on one end, more spread out on the other. essentially the strength (Gauss/Tesla) can be measured stronger at one pole vs the other. This is a matter of "lines" of flux per spatial volume. 

Weaker magnets, such as ceramic-ferrite, are more pliable. They are easier to warp the fields into the shape you want. A strong magnet like neodymium holds its' shape more in resistance to manipulation. This is caused by a property of magnetism that causes a minimum distance between "lines" when the field is compressed. The stronger the magnet, the larger this minimum distance.
For instance, a rubber refrigerator magnet can be compressed entirely into the magnetic material. Leaving no apparent field on one side, and an extended field on the other. The "lines" are still there, they are just compressed to the surface of the magnet.

Angle of entry into the field is of great importance. Some magneticians will tell you that potential energy at a given point is the same, regardless of the path taken to get there. I disagree with this, as it only really applies to a symmetrical fields (and not always). In certain configurations, there can be a path of least resistance where-in a larger potential is observed via a different exit route.

[ I use the term lines in " ", because I'm not sure this is the best way to describe it. It's convenient as a way of visualizing the field, but I like to think of it more as a bunch of Nascar tracks, with millions of tiny pulses traveling around at some ridiculous  velocity.]

Potential Energy::  When you examine a system from the perspective of energy potentials, you must consider where this potential exists. If it exists outside the boundaries of your system, then input / output energy is not the same at the potential.
They cannot be compared in that manner for the purposes of OU or COP.
Often times, a subject is argued from the perspective of E=mgh or some other analysis of a potential, without consideration that the gravitational field exists well outside the boundaries of the system observed. Energy passing into the system is not taken into account, and therefore the system is assumed to be OU. When in all actuality, the energy can be derived from outside the system boundary. Magnetism exists in a similar manner, but without a time constraint. A magnetic field extends infinitely across the universe, with ever decreasing magnitude. So while your system might be the area around your workbench, the magnetic field encompasses everything outside of that as well. So, potential energy, while it is a good method of analyzing energy values, caution must be taken as to how it is used to define your system. It is not equivalent to the input and output energy.
Especially when you consider that potential energy of a larger field can be manipulated in a localized area within that field.
like a vertical wind tunnel suspending an object in air. or magnetic repulsion, buoyancy, etc..

Here's something to think about. If you fly an airplane up to 9000 feet above sea level, then travel horizontally to some other location, maintaining the same altitude, in terms of gravitational potential, the energy is the same? or is it?......
Let's say you travel from Vancouver to Miami. In Vancouver the energy potential is: E = m[g-(change in g)]h
in Miami, where gravity is closer to the average, E=mgh.
Is this overunity?  No, the energy comes from the gravitational field outside the system being analyzed. Earth density is greater in Miami, thus a greater potential energy at the same height.
This sort of thing can also happen with magnetism.