A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy

[ayeaye]

Zetetic,

All i know is the experiment i did, and only that way there was overunity. It is difficult to make a curved continuous magnet for a disc. And the magnetic field in a curved magnet is not exactly continuous, there are like small poles in between.

It is the most important that the rotor magnets in that experiment are small and weak, and the stator magnet is strong. Because if the rotor magnets are strong, then they kind of interact too much with each other, and the results are not as good. Not sure but, it worked the best with exactly these magnets, and these were very small rectangular ceramic magnets.

As much as i know, they don't sell so small ceramic magnets anywhere. Maybe one may try with small neodymium cube magnets, they sell them even as small as one millimeter, and these should be weak enough in spite that they are neodymium. But i don't know whether that works.

But theoretically, magnetic field is not a symmetric field. Like if we draw a line between the two poles of a magnet, at one side there is the north pole, and at the other side there is the south pole. The direction of the filed lines at both sides of that line is therefore different, and the field is thus not symmetric. In every asymmetric field, there should be a path through it, so that when an object which attracts to that field moves by that path, the field does work, and the object gets additional kinetic energy. This is just mathematically so, not depending on where the energy comes from. Where the energy comes from is the matter of physics, but there must be a solution when the field is asymmetric, and thus can do work. Or there should be a configuration of the field possible, so that a pole of a magnet can go through the magnetic field, and the magnet gets an additional kinetic energy by that.

[Zetetic]

ayeaye,


Okay.

Perhaps we have finally found my confusion with your proposal.

"The direction of the filed lines at both sides of that line is therefore different, and the field is thus not symmetric." – ayeaye

The convention is to put little arrows on the illustrations magnetic lines of flux thus indicating a "flow" from the North Pole to the South Pole.

But this can be misleading.

It is only by convention that the arrows go from North to South.  The convention could just as easily be from South to North.  And, there is no "movement" or "flow" along these lines (as the arrows would seem to indicate).

"By convention, the field direction is taken to be outward from the North Pole and in to the South Pole of the magnet."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/elemag.html

"By convention, we say that the magnetic field lines leave the North end of a magnet and enter the South end of a magnet."

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/glossary.asp

"However, magnetic flux does not actually flow from the north to the south pole or flow anywhere for that matter as magnetic flux is a static region around a magnet in which the magnetic force exists"

http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/electromagnetism/magnetism.html




If you're thinking that there is a "flow" from North to South, then your drawing and your design in "Field lines chain motor 4/4" now makes sense (to me).

If field lines "flowed" (as they seem to be shown to do in all of the drawings of them) then, yes, there would be "no repulsion" on the left and right ends of the magnet in your drawing as you have indicated.  And if field lines "flowed" then your circle of magnets ("Field lines chain motor 4/4") would each pass by the fixed in place magnet, one after the other, and the disk would spin forever.  It would work.

Is this what you are/were thinking?

If so, this is where you and I disagree.  I say that the magnetic field is symmetrical (even though, by convention, the field lines always point from North to South).  And you can easily test this.

You already have the magnets and the rotating disk.  If I'm right and you set up "Field lines chain motor 3/4" exactly as you did in that video, but this time flip all of the magnets around so that the North and South poles are in the opposite positions, then you will get the same results (the same escape on the left end).  If you're right (again, if I now understand you correctly) then you will not get a similar result with the poles of the magnets (and thus the field lines) now reversed.


Do I finally understand your proposal?  Or, am I still not getting it?

Please let me know!

Take care!




- Zet


(PS:  Any more thoughts about what I've said about the "Law" of Conservation of Energy?)

[ayeaye]

Sorry, i think i caused a confusion, and couldn't explain it well. I don't know what i were thinking. So i shall try once again.

Magnetic field is asymmetric. If you look at the field lines around a single pole, then they are not evenly distributed, neither are all of them straight. This is not a symmetric field. Like you can draw a line through one pole of a magnet, so that on one side there are more field lines than on the other. At some distance from the pole at least. It is easy to find a configuration of the field where the field lines on one side of the pole are straight, and on the other side they are bent. This is also not a symmetric field.

I don't know whether asymmetric is the best word, i use it just because i find no other. Maybe it's better to say uneven field, but an uneven field where you always in some place can find asymmetry.

Every asymmetric field can do work. To illustrate this, say if gravity were uneven, that is in some places were more gravity than in other places. Then we move an object horizontally. In the area where is more gravity, it more easily goes down, and in the area where is less gravity, it more easily goes up. That way we can easily create an engine which provides energy only because of the field of gravity is uneven. But gravity is perfectly symmetric everywhere, so we cannot create such engine.

But magnetic field is asymmetric. And this means that with some configuration of the magnetic field, we can enter the field of a pole where there are less field lines, and thus less repulsion, and we can move away from the field where there are more field lines, and more repulsion.

I hope that this helped to explain what i mean by asymmetric field, why magnetic field is asymmetric, and why an asymmetric field can be made to do work. That is, how we can extract energy only from the asymmetry of the field.

I say again that this does not necessary mean violation of the conservation of energy. This may also mean that the energy comes from some unknown source.

I also say one more thing. Why an overunity device cannot be very simple. Because the nature is not always simple. For example the magnetic field, one can see that its configuration is mostly not the simplest possible. And an overunity device cannot be simpler than nature. This does not necessarily mean very complex, but it also doesn't mean the simplest one can think about.

[Zetetic]

ayeaye,


Cool.

The confusion is mine.  I have a certain understanding of magnetism and magnetic interaction.  And, more and more it's becoming clear to me, that you think about magnetism and magnetic interaction is a totally different way.  And the confusion is that I keep applying my understanding to your words and the two don't mesh.

So, in my reply to your Reply #17 I'm not going to do that.  I'm going to slow down and go through your post step by step.

(If I put in the time to really vet your words, I hope you respond.  In other words, "please don't leave me hangin'.")




One.

"Magnetic field is asymmetric. If you look at the field lines around a single pole, then they are not evenly distributed, neither are all of them straight. This is not a symmetric field. Like you can draw a line through one pole of a magnet, so that on one side there are more field lines than on the other." – ayeaye

There are different ways to read this statement.

You are applying word/concept of "asymmetric" ("uneven") to two different aspects of the magnetic field.  In the second sentence in the quote above you note that the field lines entering or exiting the same Pole are different from one another.  Some bend more and loop quickly back into (or out of) the pole while others take a longer more roundabout way in getting back to (or out of) that same pole, and in some places they are bunched up more and in other places they are more sparse.

Yes, I agree.

And, secondly, it is possible to (and I have done so) shape a magnet where the field lines entering (or exiting) one pole do not look like (do not "mirror") the shape (the overall shape) of the field lines entering (or exiting) the other pole.  In the third sentence in the quote above you are using the word/concept "asymmetrical" ("uneven") to the fact that the field lines at the two different poles can be shaped differently.

I also agree with this.



(However, you also seem to be suggesting that there can be more field lines at one end of the pole than at the other.  Perhaps, if you are also thinking that each line can be of different strength.  I'm not sure what to make of this yet.  So ... if it's okay, since I'm not quite sure how to responds to this ... let's move on.)

Did I (do I now) understand your meaning of "asymmetric" ("uneven") as you've used it?

Yes?  No?




(BTW:  Have you ever played around with rubberized magnets? There are the flat thin kind that refrigerator business cards come on but you can also get them in long wide sheets (2 in. wide, 5 or 6 feet long, and 1 mm. thick, approx.), but there are thicker rubberized magnets too (not quite a square 1 cm. all the way around, and 5 or 6 feet long, approx.)  I once paid a couple of hundred bucks to a company in China to make me a few wedge shaped magnets out of ceramics.  This was in the early days of my pmm quest and I hadn't found out about rubberized magnets yet.  You can cut them up into whatever sizes you want and stack 'em and glue 'em and whatever in all different kinds of exotic shapes (like a wedge).  And they only cost a few bucks.  And so you don't have to do the stupid think I did and spend a couple of hundred bucks, instead of five bucks, to get a wedge shaped magnet.  Anyway, this is a total tangent.  But, if you haven't come across these yet, and if you're into exotic shaped magnets (such as the kind where the shape of the field at one pole does not mirror the shape of the field at the other pole), then I thought you might be interested.)



Two.


"Every asymmetric field can do work." –ayeaye

Yes.

Where the field lines are closest together a metal ball will roll.

If you take a regular old ceramic bar magnet from the hardware store and if you pop a metal ball bearing down one of the pole surfaces it will immediately move from the mid region to the edge.  It is an "asymmetric" ("uneven") field of lines of flux and the metal ball bearing moves away from the lesser amount lines of flux per given area towards the greater amount of lines of flux per that same given area (from the middle to the edge).

And so "work" (in the technical Physics meaning) is done on the metal ball by the "asymmetry" ("unevenness") in the field.

I believe we agree.  (yes? no?)


Three.


"To illustrate this, say if gravity were uneven, that is in some places were more gravity than in other places. Then we move an object horizontally. In the area where is more gravity, it more easily goes down, and in the area where is less gravity, it more easily goes up. That way we can easily create an engine which provides energy only because of the field of gravity is uneven" – ayeaye


Okay.

I think you have missed one step of logic in the above.  I don't think it's a gap in your reasoning abilities (if you don't mind me analyzing your reasoning and logic), but rather I think you have just made a simple oversight.

I do it all the time.

Say I have a skateboard ramp (which is a horizontally extended U shape) in my backyard and it spans the distance of my backyard (in the north to south direction).  And say gravity is stronger at north end of my backyard and weaker at the south end of my backyard.  (My backyard is also in a frictionless world.)

I drop in on the north side of the ramp.  As travel down the ramp, gravitational attraction accelerates me.  I then cross the horizontal part of the ramp (in this frictionless world) to the south side of the ramp.  And there I start to travel upwards.  As I do so, gravitational attraction decelerates me.

And since gravity is stronger at the north end of the ramp and weaker at the south end of the ramp, the speed I gain while going down on the north end is greater than the speed I need while going up on the south end to reach the height where I started (on the other end).

However, in the above skateboard ramp scenario, I will not reach a greater height on the south side.  In the above skateboard ramp scenario, I will reach the same height as I started.

The missing piece of the analysis is that as I move horizontally from the greater gravitational field (north end) to the lesser gravitational field (south end).  I am moving against (in the less favored direction) and across an "asymmetric" ("uneven") gravitational field and this will slow me down.

When you write (in the above quote) "Then we move an object horizontally" I get the impression that you are thinking that there will be no deceleration as the body moves horizontally.  Yes?  No?

There will be deceleration.  And, now, after we have talked back and forth for a few times over a few days, I have the sense that your logic (your "reasoning capacity") does recognize this as in fact true ... but/and it was rather just an oversight on your part to not notice this fact before.

Yes?  No?

And the same thing is true with a magnetic field and the asymmetries found within it.

"And this means that with some configuration of the magnetic field, we can enter the field of a pole where there are less field lines, and thus less repulsion, and we can move away from the field where there are more field lines, and more repulsion." –ayeaye

Again, I think you have the same oversight here.  If a magnet has a enough velocity to push it ways into another magnet's repulsively aligned magnetic field a certain distance and where the repulsion is weakest, and then the moving magnet moves horizontally (so it remains at that same certain distance) along that field to where the repulsion is greatest, and then is repulsed, it will reach the same velocity as when it started (before encountering the magnet), in a frictionless world.  The, what I believe is the, overlooked step is that it loses velocity as it moves horizontally from the weaker repulsion to the greater repulsion and so when the greater repulsion pushes it away it does so with the moving magnet moving more slowly at the start, and so the greater acceleration will get it back to (only get back to) the same velocity it was at at the start (and not something greater).

Yes?  No?



Four.

"I say again that this does not necessary mean violation of the conservation of energy." – ayeaye

If the skateboarder reached a higher height at the end than at the start or if the repulsed magnet ended up with more velocity at the end than at the start (more "gravitational potential energy" and more "kinetic energy", respectively) then these would both, yes, definitely be violations of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

The Law of Conservation of Energy tells us that energy can change forms but the total amount of energy remains the same (in a closed system).

So, if we make our system the whole Universe (everything) then we have a closed system (there is nothing beyond everything to interact with our system and so it is a "closed system").

And in this closed system (the whole Universe) there is a skateboarder on the skateboard ramp in my back yard.  He drops in at 10 feet.  The gravity at the north end of the ramp, where he dropped in, is greater than the gravity at the south end.  He rolls across the horizontal part of the ramp and then up the south side curve and "vert."  He rolls up the ramp and he comes to a stop.  (This is a frictionless world.)

If he comes to a stop at a height higher than 10 feet (the height from whence he started) then there is more "gravitational potential energy" in the end than at the start.

And, so, the total amount of energy (including this now greater amount of gpe) within our closed system (the Universe) has increased.  And the Law of Conservation of Energy tells us that this cannot (never ever, not even one time) occur.  And so, if this were to occur, it would be a violation of the Law and it would, thus, disprove this Law.

Agree?  No?



Five.

Yeah.

A successful pmm might be simple or it might not be simple.

We are in total agreement here.




So ... please reply.  Please let me know what you think.

It has been fun discussing pmm and the Law of Conservation of Energy with you.  I hope it continues.

Take care!


- Zet




(PS:  allcanadian, ... where you at?)

[ayeaye]

Zetetic,

I only talked about a single pole. At the other pole, like in my experiment, the situation is reverse, more attraction when entering and less when leaving. So when the magnet gets more kinetic energy after going over the first pole, then it also gets an additional kinetic energy before going over the other pole. So there we may look at only one pole, what happens at the other pole is reverse.

I meant asymmetry in the sense that, if we draw a sphere around the center of the field, and we draw a plane through the center of the field, then at one side of that plane more field lines cross that sphere, than at the other side. A sphere so that the radius of the sphere is the distance at which the object, such as a pole of another magnet, passes the center of the field (center of the pole). Then when the field lines bend, at that distance there are more field lines at one side of that plane than at the other side of that plane. This description may be clumsy, but this is by now the only way to say what i mean.

Rubberized magnets is a good idea. They may be a great substitute of the small rectangular ceramic magnets in my experiment. Because these magnets must be weak, but almost all magnets which they sell are stronger.

A metal ball has a potential energy, and when it falls to the magnet, its potential energy becomes zero, so metal ball falling to the magnet is not overunity.

In the gravity example, it was not a missing part of my analyze, but rather that i thought about a different way of using the energy than you. I thought about a kind of machine, using a vertical piston on spring or such, so that repeatedly moving into the area of higher gravity and out of there, this machine can constantly generate energy. Your skateboard example was maybe better. But also if we have a large vertical wheel with a single weight on it, and this wheel is positioned so that half of it is in higher gravity and the other half of it is in lower gravity, then this wheel will continuously rotate. Provided that the difference of gravity is great enough, even if there is friction.

I meant when there are less field lines at the distance from the center of the field at which the pole of the other magnet enters the field. When the field lines are bent, then it may also be because of that.

> The, what I believe is the, overlooked step is that it loses velocity as it moves horizontally from the weaker repulsion to the greater repulsion and so when the greater repulsion pushes it away it does so with the moving magnet moving more slowly at the start, and so the greater acceleration will get it back to (only get back to) the same velocity it was at at the start (and not something greater).

No. It certainly loses some speed when it goes into the repulsion at one side of the pole, but its speed increases more than that loss of speed, at the other side of the pole, when the field is asymmetric. Provided that there is no friction or the asymmetry is great enough.

The mere fact that there is overunity, which means that the output energy is greater than the known input energy, is not enough to say that there is a violation of conservation of energy. Because some energy may come from an unknown source.