Why Over-Unity is Possible

[memoryman]

I did catch your errors, but concentrated on specific ones. Joule is unfortunately used both as a unit of work and energy; hence confusion. Your arguments and analogies are faulty. That's why nobody actually produces OU. They just talk about it. That's also why I usually respond with minimal words; I have better things to do than convincing flat earthers.

[pauldude000]

I did catch your errors, but concentrated on specific ones. Joule is unfortunately used both as a unit of work and energy; hence confusion. Your arguments and analogies are faulty. That's why nobody actually produces OU. They just talk about it. That's also why I usually respond with minimal words; I have better things to do than convincing flat earthers.

Such snarkiness! (E for effort I guess.)


Yes, Joules are used for both energy and work. I wonder why.


It couldn't be that energy is the ability to do work, therefore when work is done the amount is expressed in the amount of energy used. :-) (The two definitions are tied together, that's why.)


No confusion here son. Just claiming my arguments and analogies are faulty without demonstrating why is a cop-out.

[allcanadian]

@Paul

Experiment: Take said 5g magnet and touch it to a steel plate mounted to the ceiling. At the same time, take a 5g brass weight and place it next to the magnet and let go.

Experiment: Take said 5g magnet and touch it to a steel plate mounted to the ceiling. At the same time, take a 5g brass weight with double sided tape attached and stick it next to the magnet and let go.

As we can see there is little difference between a magnetic field and a piece of double sided tape and both would seem to defy the force of gravity. Understand gravity is not an acceleration but a force which may cause an acceleration. As well the work (a force acting through a distance) performed when the magnet stuck to the plate is equal to the work required to remove it... sum zero.

On the issue of free energy and magnets all that is required is to change the work performed in removing a magnet from the mutual field of attraction it has induced in another object. It does not matter how we do this only that we do and if the total change in work is greater than the work required to invoke the change to remove the magnet then we have produced a gain in the system. Can it be done?, some patents have suggested it can be done however for us this remains to be seen.

AC

[memoryman]

Well said, Paul.Energy is conservative, but WORK is not...
Now start to think about how this can be used.

[pauldude000]

@Paul
Experiment: Take said 5g magnet and touch it to a steel plate mounted to the ceiling. At the same time, take a 5g brass weight with double sided tape attached and stick it next to the magnet and let go.

As we can see there is little difference between a magnetic field and a piece of double sided tape and both would seem to defy the force of gravity. Understand gravity is not an acceleration but a force which may cause an acceleration. As well the work (a force acting through a distance) performed when the magnet stuck to the plate is equal to the work required to remove it... sum zero.

The sticky tape analogy is extremely loose, basically another illusion. Similarity in behavior does not yield equivalence unless all of the factors are equally equivalent. What we have with a magnet vs the tape is that the tape mechanically bonds the mass to another mass, making the two into one as far as gravity is concerned. With the magnet, it is falling, but being pulled in the opposite direction at an equal or greater rate by a different force.


I agree that if we were approaching this matter on the quantum level, it would get a lot fuzzier in clarity. This is especially true since every interaction between the packets we collectively call matter are merely field interactions of various types, but we are working with the macroscopic scale and are therefore approaching this with a mechanistic viewpoint. However, we cannot blind ourselves by using it exclusively.


The problem I have with the definition of work is that it actually allows violation of the conservation principle due to an old, outmoded notion of the concept we call work. Any system which does not move an object, but necessarily expends energy is a violation of the conservation principle. Due to the work definition, since no mass was moved spatially, no work is done. However, energy is the capability of doing work. Energy as a term can be looked at as potential or kinetic. Stored energy (no work) is potential, expended energy is kinetic. No work being done requires conservation of the energy in the system. Therefore we end up with a paradox due to definition. The magnet scenario has to expend energy to overcome a force, therefore energy is being used. If no work is being performed, then no questions have been answered, only new ones raised.


With our current understandings, the definition of work should be the expenditure of energy within a system. This would inherently open up the concept to account for new understandings of field and force interactions, while still maintaining all of the laws.