ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

[Floor]

It may be that I am misinformed. I am not an expert on this subject.

My previous explanations are as I have understood some of the basics
of wave interactions.

There is a similar set of physical relationships in regard to mass, energy and
acceleration.

         kinetic energy = 1/2 times mass times velocity squared.

A 1 kilogram mass moving at a speed of 1 meter per second has 1/2
joule of kinetic energy in its momentum.
              1/2 x 1 kg x 1m/s^2 = ..............  1/2 joule of kinetic energy

A 1 kilogram mass moving at a speed of 2 meters per second (twice the speed)
has 2  joules of kinetic energy in its momentum.
               1/2 x 1 kg x 2m/s^2 = ...............  2 joules of kinetic energy

Only twice the speed, but 4 times the energy content (2 is 4 times greater than 1/2).

This is not free energy, because it requires 4 times as much energy input, to accelerate
from at rest, a 1 kg mass to a speed of 2 meters per second, than is required to accelerate
a 1 kg mass from at rest, to a speed of 1 meter per second.

best wishes
   floor

[nix85]

Just like centrifugal force is mass velocity squared over r etc.

This is not free energy, because it requires 4 times as much energy input, to accelerate
from at rest, a 1 kg mass to a speed of 2 meters per second, than is required to accelerate
a 1 kg mass from at rest, to a speed of 1 meter per second.

You keep missing the point mixing apples and oranges. Kinetic energy is not the same as wave superposition. Two masses of 1kg moving at 2 m/s when joined together will become one 2kg mass moving at 2m/s, energy has not changed. It is still 2 x 2² that is 8.

This is obviously cause for kinetic energy speed is squared and for speed to change you need additional energy.

But for waves AMPLITUDE is squared and for that you don't need additional energy.

For waves 1+1=4

------------------------------

Vajda's paper conclusion

8. Conclusions and arising questions

The analysis and calculation results according to the previous chapters unambiguously prove that the law of energy conservation is not generally valid for the resultant field of coherent spherical electromagnetic waves (radiation) with identical frequency, since an excess- or deficiency of energy can also appear, compared to the total radiated energy, the magnitude of which depends on the parameters and geometrical position of the radiating sources. In the case of incoherent radiation (with different frequencies) the law of energy conservation will be satisfied also only, if it is valid for each radiation source separately. These declarations are valid not exclusively for spherical waves, but also for cylindrical waves and moreover for waves in general. By summarizing it conclusively we can declare as a fact, that the law of energy conservation is not generally valid – but only in special cases – for the energy propagation in space (as radiation) in the form of waves, concerning the resultant energy of the waves. Here under waves we should understand them to be not exclusively electromagnetic waves.

Further questions arising in connection with the violation of the law of energy conservation

When the necessary conditions are satisfied, where does the excess of energy come from, compared to the energy fed into the system; and in the case of energy deficiency, into what does the energy gets transformed into (or where does it disappear to)? Since the discovery of the antiparticles it is a known fact, that when a particle is united with its pair of antiparticle, then its rest mass disappears and their mass-energy (in quantum form) will be transformed into electromagnetic radiant energy. The question is whether this process is reversible, and if (under certain conditions) yes, then whether the excess of radiant energy can result in excess of particles and/or antiparticles. Namely whether an excess of mass or mass-energy can be created? Or whether the mentioned energy deficiency can be compensated by the rise of mass energy? Based on the analogy of matter and antimatter, can there be energy and anti-energy? If anti-energy does exist, then how can it be interpreted? As a conclusion we can only say briefly, that the violability of the law of energy conservation – besides its practical applicability – can hopefully represent a more generalized interpretation of the classical nuclear-physics, as well as of our knowledge about the universe, especially by answering the above questions.

Budapest
28 January 1998
János Vajda

-----------------------

But as Zephir says in 2016 thread:

"But it also means, that if we put a light impulse between two parallel mirrors, i.e. the resonator, then the energy should attenuate (he meant amplify) itself during each reflection followed with constructive interference ad infinitum. Which is apparently what doesn't happen there."

True, that is, we don't usually see this effect in reflected light, why. As Vajda says energy can be more or LESS, depending on various factors.

[Floor]

partial quote

You keep missing the point mixing apples and oranges. Kinetic energy is not the same as wave superposition. Two masses of 1kg moving at 2 m/s when joined together will become one 2kg mass moving at 2m/s, energy has not changed. It is still 2 x 2² that is 8.

!. first... ! did not say that kinetic energy is the same as wave superposition.
                           But you say I did ?

I said "There is a similar set of physical relationships in regard to mass, energy and
acceleration."

2.  Wave superposition @
https://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/superposition/superposition.html

3.  nix85 quote "Two masses of 1kg moving at 2 m/s when joined together will become
one 2kg mass moving at 2m/s, energy has not changed. It is still 2 x 2² that is 8."

Surly 2 x 2^2  = 8,  but that is not the equation for kinetic energy.

The kinetic energy of an object due to its motion is

         1/2   times    its mass   times   its velocity squared.
                 or
             Ek  = 1/2 mv2

1/2 x 2 kg x 2m/s2 = 4 joules

                        That is  4 joules  not 8 joules.

[nix85]

partial quote
!. first... ! did not say that kinetic energy is the same as wave superposition.
                           But you say I did ?

I said "There is a similar set of physical relationships in regard to mass, energy and
acceleration."

2.  Wave superposition @
https://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/superposition/superposition.html

3.  "Two masses of 1kg moving at 2 m/s when joined together will become one 2kg mass
moving at 2m/s, energy has not changed. It is still 2 x 2² that is 8."

Surly 2 x 2^2  = 8,  but that is not the equation for kinetic energy.

The kinetic energy of an object due to its motion is

         1/2   times    its mass   times   its velocity squared.
                 or
             Ek  = 1/2 mv2

1/2 x 2 kg x 2m/s2 = 4 joules

                        That is  4 joules  not 8 joules.

1) You are again missing the point and mixing apples and pears. You indeed said ""There is a similar set of physical relationships in regard to mass, energy and acceleration." and then you went on to conclude "This is not free energy"... So what. What has that to do with wave superposition, nothing.

2) We all know what wave superposition is

3) Oh my. Again grabbing onto irrelevant. Of course there is that 1/2 in front just like it is in formula for energy in a capacitor or inductor.

energy stored in an inductor E = LI²/2
energy stored in an cap E = 1/2 QV = Q²/2C = CV²/2

That 1/2 is not really 1/2, it is approximation/assumption of losses and that is irreleavant here. Whole kinetic energy parallel is irrelevant.

Point is energy of a wave is amplitude squared..

"The energy transported by a wave is directly proportional to the square of the amplitude. So whatever change occurs in the amplitude, the square of that effect impacts the energy. This means that a doubling of the amplitude results in a quadrupling of the energy."

[Floor]

           Bull Shit