Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Omnibus]

If the SGOT violates CoE, then we have no further disagreement.  Your views are completely consistent.  We shall consider the issue put to rest now.

No we won't, because that's the gist of all the discussions in this forum.

Now, you obviously disagree but that is only in words. You have no arguments whatsoever. So you'd better restrain from posting any further since obviously you have nothing of importance to say.

[utilitarian]

No we won't, because that's the gist of all the discussions in this forum.

I just meant that between the two of us, we can put the issue to rest.  I will champion the SGOT, and you can have the SMOT, and we will both be pioneers.

Though you did ask for a devil's advocate response, and here is the closest I can get to that with the SGOT.  Energy at each stage:

A to B (or "AB"):  mgh (AB)
B to C (AB + CA):  -mgh (AB+CA)
C to A (CA):  mgh (CA)

So, the closed loop A-B-C-A results in a net energy gain of zero:
mgh(AB) - mgh(AB+CA) + mgh(CA) = 0

Of course, the devil's advocate analysis is incorrect.  The devil forgets that by going from B to C, no energy is required from the hand, that the ball travels from B to C spontaneously, on its own.  The ball also returns spontaneously to A.  Therefore, one must consider only the energy imparted by the hand, which is mgh(AB).  Since mgh(AB) is less than the energy lost from B-C-A (which is mgh(BC) plus kinetic), therefore the system violates CoE.  Plain as day.

What would the devil say about the SMOT?  Of course, same flawed gravitational analysis applies as above, though slightly different, since the experiment has a different arrangement:

A to B (or "AB"):  mgh (AB)
B to C (or "BC"):  mgh (BC)
C to A (AB+BC):  -mgh (AB+BC)

So, from a gravitational standpoint, the devil would argue that there is no net energy gain:

mgh(AB) + mgh(BC) - mgh(AB+BC) = 0 
CoE obeyed

In addition, the devil would propound the following equally flawed analysis regarding the magnetic energies.  Let's assign magnetic energy changes as follows:

From A to B:  X
From B to C:  Y
From C to A:  Z

Since magnetism is a conservative force, it is safe to conclude that X+Y+Z must equal zero.

So, in a colossal mistake, the devil will attempt to foolishly combine the two analyses above as follows:

A to B:  mgh(AB) + X
B to C:  mgh(BC) + Y
C to A:  -mgh(AB+BC) + Z

Total:
mgh(AB) + X + mgh(BC) + Y - mgh(AB+BC) + Z = 0

No net energy gain and CoE obeyed.

Why is the devil wrong?  It is elementary.  It's because by going from B to C, the ball acquires this energy spontaneously, with no help from anything.  Therefore, mgh(BC) is the free energy gained from nothing.  Clear?  Good.

**********

OK, now we can agree and you have your devil's advocate argument and, let me be clear, THE TWO OF US can put this to rest.

[Omnibus]

@utilitarian,

On the contrary, you are the one to go away because this is my argument, not yours. Thus, I will not put this to rest because it, again, is the gist of the discussion in this forum. Concerning your participation, it?s up to you. You may continue to utter stupidities and you will get the response you deserve for that or you may choose to remain silent, which will be the prudent thing to do, and then you won?t hear things unpleasant to your ear. Well, there?s an unlikely third possibility for you to come to your senses but I?m not too hopeful about that.

Let?s now go back to the problem at hand and, to simplify matters, let?s stick to the gravitational example.

I will denote vertical distances A-B, C-A and C-B by h2, h1 and (h1 + h2) respectively, the rest of the symbols having their usual meaning.

From @tinu?s figure it is immediately seen that if we are to move the ball from its initial position A to position B, the ball at B will have available to inevitably transform into other energies (the ball will inevitably reach C when let go from B) an amount of energy mg(h1 + h2) which is greater than the energy mgh2, imparted to it in moving the ball from A to B. If we can find a devil's advocate who would be willing to dispute that we will know with certainty that he is out of his mind and the nicest thing he'd deserve would be to be ignored. Right?

CoE forbids such discrepancy between said energies. This discrepancy, however, is an experimental fact and therefore requires its abolition as a general principle in science.

Now, attention, what CoE forbids is that mentioned discrepancy despite the fact that, once available, that greater energy mg(h1 + h2) will transform equivalently into other energies which is obeyed in full in this example.

Principle of CoE has two aspects??transformation? and ?conservation?. In fact, it?s actual name (although we call it for brevity ?conservation of energy?) is ?principle of conservation and transformation of energy?. As I have said many, many times these examples (I have been looking for years for mechanical examples, equivalent to such in other areas which I won?t discuss now) violate only the ?conservation? part of CoE and do not violate the ?transformation? part of CoE. Indeed, all my analysis is based entirely on considering the ?transformation? aspect of CoE as valid. In other words, it is indisputably valid that when there is energy available its transformation into other energies occurs in equivalent quantities.

Your analysis obviously serves to reconfirm that aspect (the ?transformation? aspect) of the CoE, incorrectly considering that it is this aspect I am disputing. That?s wrong. Hear it once again, I am not disputing this aspect of CoE. What I am disputing is the statement that energy cannot be obtained out of no energy source, that is I am disputing the ?conservation? aspect of the CoE, which is the more important aspect, not the ?transformation? aspect you think I?m disputing. OK?.

As a matter of fact, in the overwhelming number of cases in science when discussing energy it is the application of exactly that ?transformation? aspect of CoE that is had in mind and is applied in the analyses and probably that has led to overlooking the possibility for the crucial violation we?re discussing now.

As we see, there are instances whereby energy can appear out of no energy source, only due to the favorable placing (due to proper construction) of an object in a conservative force field. Therefore, when saying ?energy out of nothing? we mean out of no energy source, by no means ignoring the existence of physically real conservative forces acting on the object and construction which are the underlying cause for the appearance of that energy. In this sense, a force field isn?t ?nothing?. Energy is obtained from no energy source but from very much existing other components of the physical world.




P.S. As a matter of fact Helmohltz in his lectures (because the papers he had submitted had been rejected from publication), where he puts forth the principle of CoE, shows a clear confusion between force and energy calling it principle of conservation of force. That confusion is later silently shoved under the rug making it appear that he actually meant conservation of energy. That?s only a detail.

[tinu]

@tinu,

Now, take the position of a devil's advocate and explain why your experiment is not in violation of CoE.

The Devil will surely like to question your understanding of CoE principle, since you agreed that both SMOT and SGOT violate CoE.

Other than that, there is not much left to discuss but maybe engineering challenges. Like sm0ky2 correctly anticipated, there is quite a large class of such devices, including SEOT (Electrical) and maybe CNOT (complex nuclear, either weak or strong). Nonetheless, I?m quite confident that engineers will be able to solve the dispute.
To the free energy we go!

Cheers,
Tinu

[Omnibus]

@All,

Although incorrect, I should say that, to his credit, @utilitarian at least tried. He confuses the ?transformation? part of the CoE with the ?conservation? part thinking that I?m disputing the former while I challenge the latter. That?s a common misunderstanding as is seen from the Steorn forum in the threads where we were discussing this. That confusion has been exposed and rejected numerous times and is nothing new. Of course, @utilitarian may not know this and he repeats once again the same mistake. Note, however, that such a mistake is an honest mistake which, as I said, really stems from the incomplete way CoE is usually applied in academia. This mistake has nothing to do with the obvious stupidities written by a number of people, most recently by @zerotensor and @smOky2. That?s the reason I spent time to respond to @utilitarian?s post (and not just tell him not to clutter the thread with stupidities), mainly considering that he may be unaware of the fact that these exact incorrect arguments have already been discussed and rejected.