A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy

[verpies]

There is i think always the same number of field lines at both ends of the magnet. The only difference is how they distribute,

Why do you think so?
BTW: The number of these lines is commonly called the total Magnetic Flux.

[ayeaye]

Why do you think so?

I don't know, i think this is what field lines are. Field lines don't exist by themselves, they are just vector paths of the curvature of the field. Assuming that the field is evenly distributed at the center of the pole, this is how it should be. Why i think the field is evenly distributed at the center of the pole, simply because the field should be the strongest there, and the least affected by outside forces. So this is more or less how it should be. But i don't say that it's precisely so.

No, magnet tape may not be good for the purpose, as it may not have all one pole at one side. Not sure though, and i don't know where to get a better magnetic rubber. So the other options are the 1 mm neodymium cube magnets, or magnetizing small ferrite cores, the latter may be the best option.

[ayeaye]

Well, i could repeat the experiment 3/4, with a chain (array) of four rectangular 7 x 7 x 5 mm ceramic magnets, when the stator was quite far, and the forces were not great. The distance between magnets was such that 16 magnets make a full circle, with that distance between magnets.

7 x 7 x 5 mm ceramic magnets are the smallest ceramic magnets one can buy. The original experiment was done with 5 x 5 x 3 mm ceramic magnets, but they don't sell so small ceramic magnets anywhere. The stator magnet used in the original experiment 3/4 was a cylindrical neodymium magnet 15 mm long and 8 mm in diameter. An easy way to fix a stator magnet, is to put two cigarette lighters one on another, and fasten with a mounting tape.

I also didn't find any shifting of poles when 16 such magnets (7 x 7 x 5 mm) made a full circle. With such distance also the forces between magnets were not too great, and it was easy to fasten the magnets with a mounting tape. What i felt with such distance between magnets of that strength, was that the movement didn't feel so smooth and not so good as with a smaller ceramic magnets.

I couldn't get any continuous rotation with a full circle of 16 magnets on the disc though. The rotation was in fact worse than in the experiment 4/4. But continuous rotation was not my aim, the only aim was to show overunity. If one wants to achieve a continuous rotation in that way, then this is a whole separate work, and i have no reasons to say that it can succeed.

One thing about multiple stator magnets that i mentioned, as i said they make no sense generally, like for going over a gap, because the device is dynamic. Yet they may make some sense because in that design everything may matter, the placement of magnets, but also the strength and distance of the stator magnet. So multiple stators may make sense when that enables to use stator magnets of a proper strength. But they also may not be necessary.

So i think i now said everything i could.

[Zetetic]

ayeaye,


Please excuse my silence.

I can think through things in incredible detail.  And, so, if you've got something with your Fields Lines Motor, I may be the right guy to understand you.

However, I burn out.  I need to take a break from it for a while.  I will come back.  But I need to think about other things for a time.

Here is what I am debating (/thinking about) at the moment:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88857-what-happens-at-a-distance-when-an-electromagnet-is-turned-off/

Please note: I use the word "asymmetrical" in that argument a lot.  And I got that from you!

In this argument (linked to here) I think I have disproved Newton's Third Law.  (I just stumbled across it.)  And, if I'm right, then I can disprove it in only on short paragraph.

(In the link in the OP of this post I disprove (hopefully) the Law of Conservation of Energy.  And I do this in only two (Word for Window) pages.  To get it into that short of an argument is an accomplishment.  However, to disprove another fundamental "Law of Physics" (Newton's Third Law) and to do it in only one clear simple short paragraph is an even greater accomplishment.)

So, anyway, I'll be back (here).

But, right now, I need to think about other things.

(I'm also taking a Coursera course on Soren Kierkegaard.  Professor Jon Stewart is an excellent teacher.  You might not think that Kierkegaard has anything to do with what we are talking about here, but upon a deeper reading of what Professor Stewart is saying and then upon a reflection of our conversation here, there is a lot of relevance!)

So, please excuse my ( ... temporary ... ) silence.  My brain cells need to rebuild.



Thank you for the conversation thus far!  I have enjoyed it!  And, as always, I respect your logic and especially your creativity with that sound logic immensely!



Cheeers!

- Zet

[verpies]

I don't know, I think this is what field lines are. Field lines don't exist by themselves...

Regardless whether these lines are real or imaginary their amount is not constant in a permanent magnet and depends on the reluctance of its external magnetic circuit.  This is evident from the work line of the BH curve.

However, an energized superconducting tube keeps the total flux through the tube constant regardless of the external reluctance and it's flux distribution resembles the distribution of a permanent bar magnet.