A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy

[ayeaye]

Norman,

Well, even considering the potential energy, in the magnetic gate array, when the field is symmetric, and the potential energy makes sense, your device still has overunity. When it really is what is on that diagram drawn by sm0ky2. Because in addition it moves back from the end position, to position 2, by gravity, the energy of that movement is not provided by any initial potential energy.

Zetetic,

I think the answer to your question is, in the irregular field (like that which can be switched off) potential energy has no meaning. Comes out of logic. One may analyze what happens in the magnetic field, if there is any way to do that. But, that magnetic field increases, when an iron ball approaches, the problem with that is that this may violate the conservation of energy. Because the potential energy of the iron ball is transformed into a kinetic energy exactly by the law of the conservation of energy. If there in addition is any transfer of energy to increase or decrease the magnetic field energy, then this as i see violates the conservation of energy. I mean, i don't exclude that some of the energy of the moving iron ball goes to the magnetic field, but i mean that he magnetic field increasing or decreasing by the amount of the kinetic energy of the iron ball, violates the conservation of energy. Or that the energy spent to remove a slightly greater magnetic field takes much more energy, this should be exactly equal to the field energy of the magnetic field. Each magnetic field has a field energy, but this energy is very small.

sm0ky2,

Yes a pole has the same number of field lines, but they are distributed differently. Say when outside is another attracting magnet, a part of the field lines at the outer side of the pole goes to the pole of that magnet, and less remain free. To the point when two magnets are against each other by opposite poles, we cannot detect any poles from outside at that point any more, two magnets have become one magnet. Then we cannot use the asymmetry of that pole any more, because the pole like disappeared, the outer poles of the joint magnet work instead. At least this is how i see it by now by my simple mind.

[Zetetic]

smOkey2,


"It takes some time to heat the magnet, as well as some time for the full disassociation of the magnetic domains within the material." – Reply #61

For the ease of analysis, assume (and this is acceptable to do in a thought experiment) the demagnetization is instantaneous.  (If you assume something else, a slower more real world process, it does not change the overall logic but rather just makes the thought experiment more cumbersome.)


-


"The field would begin to collapse at a point 1 light year from the source in every direction. From the outer extremities towards the center of magnetism." – Reply #61

smOkey2 please respond to this question:

Are you saying that if we have an electromagnet and a permanent magnet 1 light year apart , ... and where the electromagnet has been turned on for a number of years and the permanent magnet and the electromagnet are attracted to one another ... and so the two magnets feel a pull towards one another, ... are you saying that if that electromagnet is then switched off that the permanent magnet will feel the loss of the pull from the (now switched off electromagnet) in less than one year (from the time when the electromagnet was switched off)?



---


Norman,

Okay, I understand now that the pendulum comes to rest at the six o'clock position because this is the point closest to the Earth below and not due to greater magnetic attraction.

However, the analysis basically remains the same.  When the pendulum is at two o'clock there is potential energy between it and the Earth below (due to gravitational attraction) and there is potential energy between it and the magnets on the far side (due to magnetic attraction).

I have spent many many years working with models like these (with the magnets orientated towards one another in all sorts of different ways) trying to get OU.  And I failed.  (That's not to say that someone else can't find that just right configuration that I was never able to find.)

My experiences have lead me to the same conclusions as stated by sm0key2:

"what you gain on the way up is what you get back out on the way down." – Reply #63

"asymmetry does not matter in most situations. The asymmetrical field is still inversely proportional. +/-, it all balances out in the end.
" – Reply #66


But there is always hope!



---



ayeaye,


"I think the answer to your question is, in the irregular field (like that which can be switched off) potential energy has no meaning." – Reply #70

"Maybe overunity should be defined without potential energy after all. Because potential energy, by everything it implies, is so confusing concept." – Reply #68


I think "potential energy" should be avoided (if able) when making purely theoretical arguments as against the "known and accepted" Law of Physics (such as mine linked to in the OP) because it is such a slippery concept, but when it comes to building OU mechanical devices it should be fine.

When you're building a device that is intended to move forever, and if that devices includes some form of energy becoming potential energy and then that potential energy becoming another form of energy and so on, what you're dealing with is a real thing.  When two magnets are some distance apart from one another, there really is an attraction between them, and if let go this potential energy will really become kinetic energy.  Potential energy in this context is not simply a matter of designation.  And if anyone wants to designate it as 0 units of potential energy or -10 units of potential energy or a zillion units of positive potential energy ... it doesn't matter.  In your OU device that real potential energy becomes real kinetic energy.

However, in the realm of a purely theoretical argument, if you were to say "when you demagnetize one magnet in a two magnet system there is a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy because the amount of potential energy between the two magnets due to their mutual attraction is now gone without a corresponding change in another form of energy to offset this" then that's, I've found, where the dance of designation occurs and mainstream Physics gets slippery.


-


I think you and sm0key2 are in danger doing what you and I did and talking about the word "asymmetrical" with two different concepts in mind.  And, if so, I hope you two can avoid my mistake of then going on for long post after long post telling you that you were wrong, when all along I just didn't understand how you were using that word in relation to magnetism and in relation of gravity.  My bad.


I want to understand your 4.4, and so I've made a drawing for you to critique.  Please examine it and let me know how this does and/or does not correspond to your ideas.


---



This has been a fascinating discussion!

Take care!

- Zet

[ayeaye]

Zetetic,

Yes correct. Sure there is some negative repulsion and attraction between the magnets, but this is less than the positive repulsion and attraction near the side of the magnet, due to asymmetry of the magnetic field at each pole. Maybe you should also draw the curvature of the disc, which may provide more asymmetry. I also talked about 3/4, which i think is a better example than 4/4, but i did not have enough weak magnets for a complete circle.

So there were better results when magnets were more far apart than in 4/4. The problem with 4/4 was that these magnets were too strong, and attracted to each other, so the only solution i found was to put some folded paper between them. I think using weaker magnets there should give better results, because all the problems there were caused by magnets too much interacting with each other. Including maybe that shifting of the poles.

I think it's better to define asymmetry so that, when we draw a plane through the center of the field, then the field is asymmetric when there is anywhere more field lines at one side of that plane, than at the other side. This includes asymmetry also when it is only due to uneven distribution of the field lines. In the magnetic field, this center of the field is the center of one pole, so it is the asymmetry of the field around one pole.

I didn't define it clearly enough before also, and this also could cause confusion, this part was my fault.

[Zetetic]

ayeaye,


Okay ... let's see if I can another step forward (without taking two steps back) in understanding your idea.

I've drawn another picture.  Please let me know if I'm on the right track, or not.

(Please note, in this drawing the moving magnet and fixed magnets are opposite from how they are in your actual models.  It was easier to draw it this way.  But, as we talked about before, it doesn't which one(s) is in motion and which one(s) at rest, but just that their orientations towards one another is the same as in your models.)

(Let's see if we can get this right first, before moving onto other drawings.)


Let me know!


Cheers!


- Zet

[ayeaye]

Zetetic,

Yes right.

I tried to draw too, but i don't know how well i can draw these field lines.

This is a kind of subtle though. In that the more there is interaction with the other magnets, the weaker the poles come. Until all is one magnet, and poles are only at the ends of the chain.

Where do they sell these rubberized magnets you talked about, btw? I searched ebay, and all i found was magnet tape. It may be possible to make these magnets from that too. Magnet tape should have one pole on one side of the tape, and the other on the other side, so the edge should be N S, but not sure whether that works.

Very small neodymium cube magnets, like 1 mm, may be another option, but some say that neodymium magnets have somehow a very rigid magnetic field, so may not be good for the purpose. Yet another option may be to magnetize tiny ferrite cores or such.

Also it looks like, when the circle of magnets in 4/4 is full, something happens. Partly all the chain behaves like one magnet, and wants to have poles at the ends. But when the circle is full, the distribution of the field kind of changes, with new stronger poles emerging somewhere. And this is more difficult to control, It may sound crazy but, it may be good to omit one or two magnets in the circle, to make a "gap".

Then at the ends of the chain there will be stronger poles, but when the chain is made well, these would not be strong, and the strength of the magnetic field is more evenly distributed around the circle. So maybe it will get enough speed to jump over the gap, not sure though. 3/4 is a simpler experiment, just to show overunity. Trying a continuous rotation causes additional problems, and may not be possible to achieve because of that.