Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Omnibus]

Like I said, the problem is that in our every day research we usually take the "transformation" part of CoE as the CoE itself usually overlooking its main part, the "conservation" part. And that's in a way understandable because what we usually are dealing with are transformations of energy from one form to another. The whole mainstream chemistry is based on that, for instance. Only in very subtle cases which I will not go into now, not in the mainstream chemistry. at that, can there be an analog of the situation we're discussing now. I won't get ito it now because, as seen, even a simple case such as this isn't easy to get across to some, let alone an example based on the complexities of chemistry which are only up to real experts.

[tinu]

Putting a ball at the top of the hill B by lifting it from A and having it roll down is not energy from nothing only down to point level with A. Any energy from that point on, down to C, is energy from nothing (meaning from no energy source).

HA! In your mind maybe...

[utilitarian]

On the contrary, as explained, these devices I?m granting overunity status do work. Every cycle ends up the ball at its initial state, point A, producing in the meantime energy from nothing (from no energy source). This is what a proper overunity device should do. If you don?t trust me, recall the link @Yadaraf gave in support of that, explaining what a perpetual motion machine is. That explanation didn?t include the requirement that the device should sustain itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion:

I do not understand why you do not account for the potential energy present in the ball at starting point A.  It still has that energy, whether you put it there, or I did, or God did it, or the kid down the block, or if the earth in its volcanic violence formed it that way.  As you would have it:

Height A: h1
From A to B: h2
From B to C: (h1+h2)

Ball starts out with potential energy mg(h1) at A.  Human hand adds energy to the system equal to mg(h2), and the ball is now at B.  Ball rolls downhill on its own, converting potential energy mg(h1+h2) to kinetic energy and also into heat and sound.  After passing C, the ball converts the kinetic energy it has into potential energy mg(h1) and no more, since the kinetic energy from mg(h2) was lost to friction, so the ball is able to make it to A, and no further.  Where is the profit?  No excess energy here.

If the above is a violation of CoE, then I violated CoE the other day on the basketball court.  Referee hands me the ball, as I stand at the free throw line.  I take the ball at height A (4 feet off floor).  I bring the ball up and shoot.  Ball smacks off the front of the rim (height B, 10 feet off floor).  The ball then proceeds to bounce back to me, off the floor (height C, zero feet off floor), and I catch it at the crest of its bounce.  Hope the spectators saw that!  Bad shot, true, but I just turned a millennium of science sideways.  Thermodynamics is no longer the same!

[Omnibus]

Putting a ball at the top of the hill B by lifting it from A and having it roll down is not energy from nothing only down to point level with A. Any energy from that point on, down to C, is energy from nothing (meaning from no energy source).

HA! In your mind maybe...

Don't bother. Go learn some physics first.

[Omnibus]

   

]Quote from: Omnibus on Today at 04:08:58 PM
On the contrary, as explained, these devices I?m granting overunity status do work. Every cycle ends up the ball at its initial state, point A, producing in the meantime energy from nothing (from no energy source). This is what a proper overunity device should do. If you don?t trust me, recall the link @Yadaraf gave in support of that, explaining what a perpetual motion machine is. That explanation didn?t include the requirement that the device should sustain itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion:

I do not understand why you do not account for the potential energy present in the ball at starting point A.  It still has that energy, whether you put it there, or I did, or God did it, or the kid down the block, or if the earth in its volcanic violence formed it that way.  As you would have it:

Height A: h1
From A to B: h2
From B to C: (h1+h2)

Ball starts out with potential energy mg(h1) at A.  Human hand adds energy to the system equal to mg(h2), and the ball is now at B.  Ball rolls downhill on its own, converting potential energy mg(h1+h2) to kinetic energy and also into heat and sound.  After passing C, the ball converts the kinetic energy it has into potential energy mg(h1) and no more, since the kinetic energy from mg(h2) was lost to friction, so the ball is able to make it to A, and no further.  Where is the profit?  No excess energy here.

You are making the same mistake @tinu makes. Look at your balance. It doesn?t contain that initial energy. Because if it did then you would have (in my notation):

mgh1 + mgh2 ? mg(h1 + h2) + mgh1 =/= 0

which is not what you wrote, correct?

The energies the machine has at its initial state are never taken into account in this kind of energy balance. You wrote the energy balance correctly but your understanding of it is incorrect?first, as I noted, in terms of the origin of the terms in it and second, as it is seen now, regarding the energy at the initial state.

If the above is a violation of CoE, then I violated CoE the other day on the basketball court.  Referee hands me the ball, as I stand at the free throw line.  I take the ball at height A (4 feet off floor).  I bring the ball up and shoot.  Ball smacks off the front of the rim (height B, 10 feet off floor).  The ball then proceeds to bounce back to me, off the floor (height C, zero feet off floor), and I catch it at the crest of its bounce.  Hope the spectators saw that!  Bad shot, true, but I just turned a millennium of science sideways.  Thermodynamics is no longer the same!

Not to get confused, avoid the kinetic energy and do the basketball court thing this way?the referee places the ball on an elevated surface, above the ground of the court. The ball sits still there. In this way the referee builds the ?machine? consisting of the elevation, the ball, the rim and the ground. Aside from the work the referee has done to place the ball at the elevation,  someone else has done work to make the rim, screw it up where it is, other work has also been done to create the ?machine? too. That?s the initial state of the machine. If you let it on its own it will stay intact indefinitely. However, you pick up the ball, lift it to the rim and let it go. The ?machine? works in such a way that it brings back the ball at the same spot at the elevation and has it there finally at rest. CoE (in its more essential "conservation" part) is violated. The "transformation" part of CoE is not violated.