Conservation of Energy fallacies

[onepower]

Taken from another thread.

This is a common fallacy, "the claimed invention violates the first law of thermodynamics, which is also known as the principal of conservation of energy, stating the internal energy of an isolated system remains constant"

Uhm, I have a few questions...

1)You falsely claimed, "the claimed invention violates the first law of thermodynamics" but also infer nothing can violate it. So which is it?, did the invention violate something you claim cannot be violated or did it not?.

2)You falsely claimed, the first law of thermodynamics is also known as the principal of the conservation of energy, which is a fallacy. Thermo(heat)-dynamics(motion) is only one form of energy not the same as others like Electro(electric field)-dynamics(motion). In fact, the Conservation of Energy applies to any and/or all forms energy could theoretically take not only something as primitive as heat. You do not seem to understand basic physics or the nature of your claim.

3)You falsely claimed, "the claimed invention violates the first law of thermodynamics, stating the internal energy of an isolated system remains constant". First you would have to prove a truly isolated system can actually exist which you cannot. Second, the patent never claimed the invention was an "imaginary" isolated system which cannot exist. Third, in all open systems which the invention obviously is the total energy is never constant.

I get tired of people too dense to understand basic logic and reasoning.

Logically, they cannot claim "something" violates a law which they also claim cannot be violated because it's a direct contradiction. They could claim the invention violates the first law of thermodynamics but then they would have to explain exactly how, show a direct connection between heat(jiggling atoms) and any other forms of energy present and how all this relates to the invention/process specifically. There not even remotely intelligent enough to do this so of course they generalize using fallacies.

AC

[ramset]

And then there is the moving /evolving target of physics .
The rule book for what is truly possible?
The MUON or subatomic "5th force?"
( heavy ( magnetic..?)electron ?)
https://muon-g-2.fnal.gov/

[x_name41]

something about of question for cancellation of the law of conservation of energy: Response of the Russian Academy of Sciences [08.2023] about the proof of the absence of the law of conservation of energy

in short, in two words, it is a matter of someone arguing that scientists did not take into account the magnetic component in the interaction of two point charges )
quote from the document:

On pages 100 - 108 of this work It has been proved that the existing law of conservation of energy in
electrodynamics is incomplete: it does not take into account the real effect on a
moving electric charge of the magnetic component of the Lorentz force, which
in some important cases violates the law of conservation of energy in
electrodynamics. The consequence of this violation is the dependence of the
magnetic component of the Lorentz force on the velocities of electric charges.

[onepower]

x_name41

something about of question for cancellation of the law of conservation of energy

The Conservation of Energy is a theory or concept and a very good one.

It supposes that "Energy" relating to the motion/change of something is conserved. It is conserved because it takes a force to cause something to move/gain velocity. However the thing in motion will eventually hit something else producing a force transferring it's energy to it in the process. So we see Force>>>motion<<<force>>>motion<<<force>>>motion repeating perpetually.

What confuses most people is when energy is transformed. I throw a ball at a wall, it stops and it's kinetic energy seems to disappear. However most of the apparent kinetic energy of the ball was converted into a kinetic jiggling motion of it's atoms as heat. If we added up all the jiggling motions gained by the atoms of the ball it would equal the initial linear motion of the ball before the impact. Hence the reasoning that energy is conserved, it may change forms or the level on which the motion occurs called a transformation but energy is always conserved.

To think energy isn't conserved is simply a failure to fully understand all the ways cause and effect could play out. We think energy has somehow disappeared because we cannot see or measure it but it's always present in some form.

As an expert in energy systems I basically ignore the conservation of energy in my work. In my opinion it's not a supposed law or needs to be one, it's a form of reasoning. We don't need to believe anything anyone else claims and the COE should be self-evident. There is no example of something losing energy where something else on some level has not gained an equal amount and that should be enough. Forget about the supposed laws and forget about what other people may or may not claim. If we understand the logic and reasoning which led to the idea in the first place then we can determine how something could work or not... it gives us options.

AC

[Cloxxki]

Most will agree with the conservation of energy, but we can all look for ways to harvest energy elsewhere.
Say, there is some burn left in car exhaust gasses. We build an efficient air filter that harvests molecules, and we stick the whole thing on a gas powered vehicle. On the highway when the air is sufficiently "combustable" we engage the filter and collect the particulates in a tank. If the octane number is similar enough to our usual unleaded, we might as well mix it into the main tank. Especially when there is a particularly bad traffic jam, we may end the drive with more range left than we started, and it's fuel level and energy density based. Nothing violates conservation of energy, we just borrowed from a vast but less accessible source.

In this (hypothetical?) example we know where the surplus is going to to be coming from.
With many proposed or claimed inventions, the source is "vague" at best.
A lot of great work can be done to reduce losses, and we've seen that in regular cars over the decades. Less heat is rejected per kg of basically the same fuel, and more useful work is extracted. In that particular example there has always been a lot of wasted heat to get more work from, but in many processes there is just a high level of efficiency already. Battery electric cars, some are thrown together very badly and seem to lose a lot of energy, but generally, you can't even theoretically get 50% more work from them by tweaking the drivetrain.

Now which proposed sytems have a clear resource that's being tapped? Turning one molecule into a lighter one with spare energy to put to use, that'd be nice. Ideally not via heat rejection (sorry fusion) as that's inherently inefficient unless it's heat we're after. We sit on a 12,000 km ball of mostly molten lava, so heat isn't the most scarse thing, I'd say.

Stanley Meyer claimed to be drawing in...electrons was it, to make his car engine run on water as sole input? Is that a viable way to increase potency of the chemical reactions exploited? Where did that energy come from, and how was it replenished at that source?