Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[tinman]

 

Electrolysis is well understood and well accounted.  Where do you think there is a loss or gain in total energy

I dont believe there is any gain or loss-this was a question i was asking others to confirm.

The question itself betrays a failure to understand how we acquire knowledge.

The failure comes with the inability to use systems that have no loss or gain to drive other systems that give extra gain's due to the motion of the first unity system.1 system closed,and 1 system open.

You are welcome to try.  Al who have tried in the past have failed.

If the past were only full of failure's,then we'd still be walking to work and swiming to the bahama's.

[MarkE]

@Mark
I see a great deal of progress in this field and it's interesting to consider the big picture.

Kindly cite an example of the progress you claim.  I am looking for where it can be shown that we have obtained reliable evidence that any free energy technology can deliver as claimed.

I think you believe free energy cannot be real because you have no proof which relates to personal observations.

No, I base the likelihood of free energy being real at next to nil because no one has ever offered reliable evidence of it and we have great experience that matter / energy are conserved.

On the other hand you also have no proof Electrons or Protons exist because you have never observed them and yet you may believe in them without question. Which leaves us in an awkward position because many of the objections to the concept of free energy relate to modern physics which is generally based on the absence of disproof. That is we can believe something is true through observation which may be true or it may be false because the premise is false or we may also believe something is true but is unobservable and based on an absence of disproof. You see in physics the more fantastic the claim ie. virtual particles, the less likely someone will find an objection to the claim based on an observation.

That is about a five-way conjunctive argument.  Nope, it is very simple:  Come up with reliable evidence of free energy and it will be something to consider and investigate. So what reliable evidence do you have?

For instance you may observe that a piece of iron is attracted to a magnet and believe this must be true even though fundamentally the premise is completely false.

What "this" are you referring to?  What "premise" are you referring to?

The magnet has a field which induces an opposite field in the iron, Magnetic Induction, the two fields couple which produces a force between them causing the fields to move towards one another. Thus iron is not attracted to a magnet, the magnet induces a field in the iron and the two fields interact causing a force between the fields which is observed as attraction however the observation of attraction is fundamentally false. The Iron is not attracted to anything it is a field related phenomena.

Are you offering your personal beliefs or are you trying to describe what you think conventional theory postulates?

Now if I took a rubber band and stretched it should I then believe my left and right hand are attracted to one another?.

Did they pass notes to each other in class?  Do they blush in each other's presence?

Well no that is quite ridiculous and yet this is exactly what most would seem to believe in regards to magnets and iron. Einstein had some insight into the nature of this problem and presumed two forces pulling inward to a center are indistinguishable from two external forces pushing inward to a center. As such an observation may appear to be true on the surface but based on a premise which is false leading once again to the concept of proof not being real proof of anything in a universal sense but an absence of disproof.

You appear to conflate observation:  what is actually sensed, with interpretations of observations.

I think the concept of free energy is a quagmire of semantics and false beliefs by most everyone involved on both sides of the debate. Both sides debate the issue while standing on a foundation of quicksand, all proclaiming they are on firm ground as they slowly sink into the reality they have created for themselves. In any case the one thing which seems obvious to me is that our history has proven we will always learn new things which will disprove our past beliefs. There is no static only dynamic and everything must change regardless of what we may believe.

AC

I saw an instructive observation once, where the person speaking noted that while there are many, many things that are possible and as yet undiscovered, there are many more that necessarily are not possible.  Rational people follow the evidence.

[poynt99]

Here are some hints as to what magnetism (and the forces) is:

http://skepticsplay.blogspot.ca/2007/12/relativity-electrostatics-magnetism.html
http://skepticsplay.blogspot.ca/2011/03/electricity-magnetism-space-and-time.html

[tinman]

Perhaps I have misunderstood?

This is my understanding; you turn on the disassociation apparatus and run it until you have 100psi in each container. This H and O2 if recombined represents a certain amount of energy. Correct thus far?

Now, you are comparing that stored energy to the power of your 60W source? Is that correct?

We are supplying the cell with 60 watts of power until such time that the tanks have reached the said pressure. If we now add the stored energy within the H and O + the heat energy from the cell(and the battery as well if we want to get down to the nitty gritty)-will this total amount of energy equal the P/in supplied?.-->or is there another energy being disipated that we are not taking into account?.

Were looking for the total transformation.

[MarkE]

I dont believe there is any gain or loss-this was a question i was asking others to confirm.

And so you have received your confirmations.

The failure comes with the inability to use systems that have no loss or gain to drive other systems that give extra gain's due to the motion of the first unity system.1 system closed,and 1 system open.

You have created an accounting problem.  As long as you do not place a boundary around a system, the amount of energy and/ormatter that can enter or leave has no intrinsic limit.  There is no meaningul way to evaluate such a thing that has been set-up as completely indefinite.

If the past were only full of failure's,then we'd still be walking to work and swiming to the bahama's.

If lollipops only came in grape children who prefer cherry would be disappointed.  None of the technology we have developed depends on free energy being real.  Go ahead and try to disprove conservation in energy, or gravitation (buoyancy is a subset).  No one has ever succeeded before you.