A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy

[norman6538]

Here are two other magnet anomalies that you might be interested in.

my pendulum that goes past its dropped point.
http://www.overunity.com/14876/permanent-magnet-ou-machine-working-today/msg414896/#msg414896
and overunity annimation.

http://www.overunity.com/14876/permanent-magnet-ou-machine-working-today/msg445683/#msg445683

Enjoy,
Norman

[ayeaye]

Norman6538, interesting but, not in the video, its description or in your threads, is a complete technical data about that experiment. What magnets, how strong, how positioned, These experiments have to be repeatable, otherwise they are worthless. Looks like similar to mine, and the result is the same, overunity but not enough for a continuous rotation. But what is it based on, asymmetric field, changing field, shielded field? By the information provided, this is not clear, and so there is nothing more to talk about. So unless a complete information is provided, this experiment is worthless.

You may try to explain it by asymmetric field or other theoretical way by yourself, if you can. But if not, repeat my experiment, where complete information is provided, and which is also likely much more easily repeatable https://archive.org/details/Flcm3

And although it looks similar, it is not clear how much energy is necessary to move the pendulum to the starting position. In spite that it looks obvious, the input and output energy cannot be compared, and complete measurement is the only thing that gives to these experiments any value. That something moves more somewhere than somewhere else, does not necessarily mean that the energy was greater, the force may be great. So the distances are not necessarily measures of the energies, unless the experiment is done so that they are.

In my experiment, the energy necessary to move the disc to the peak of the magnet, is exactly equal to the energy released when moving from that peak by the repulsion of that magnet. So the distance by which the disc moves by the repulsion of that magnet (the first magnet in the chain) is a measure of the energy necessary to move the disc to the peak, that is the input energy.

Now when the disc moves more by the chain of the magnets, starting from the same peak (and it did), then the output energy is greater than the input energy. So my experiment is two stage, first is to measure the input energy, and second is to measure the output energy. This is good because it enables to immediately measure the distances, and thus the energies. Because the energies correspond to distances.

One more thing, overunity in a magnetic field may also explain the overunity in solid state devices, but also overunity in some mechanical devices where elasticity or impact is involved, because elasticity is electromagnetic. The interaction between the molecules in a liquid is also electromagnetic. That is everywhere where magnetic field is involved. In a way they all involve a mutual interaction of moving charged particles and a magnetic field.

But whether the conservation of energy is violated, my gut feeling says to me that when there is an energy in a vacuum, which may be a chaotic movement of some particles, maybe the higgs bosons, then when some more orderly movement emerges, such as a movement in a field, then this decreases the chaotic movement in the vacuum, and thus correspondingly decreases the energy in the vacuum. Vice versa, a loss of order increases the energy in the vacuum. But it also may be that energy is transferred from one magnetic field to the other. Or it may come from something else overlooked. So i don't speculate where the energy comes from. I just said that to show that overunity does not necessarily mean a violation of the conservation of energy.

[norman6538]

ayeaye,   Are you referring to the pendulum? or the annimation? They are entirely different. The pendulum is only intended to wake us up out of the box/tunnel and realize that there is something happening there and the annimation will evolve into a demonstration of real overunity where more work out can be seen than work in.

And no one has ever to my knowledge even tried or asked to replicate the pendulum.
It should be a great scientific curiosity but currently curiosity is in short supply.

I have a permanent magnet addiction that I get sucked into from time to time.
Then I take a break till something starts cooking again.

Norman

[ayeaye]

The only value of these experiments is that they can be replicated, they cannot be proved. The following is a thumbnail from my experiment, the field lines chain experiment. All the data to replicate the experiment is provided. A computer processor fan is used for bearings, it is also stuck to the table with a mounting tape. Which is not a problem, the mounting tape can be easily taken off the table, with no traces left. Everything is fixed with a mounting tape.

[Zetetic]

ayeaye ,


"... but switching it off or shielding it may not be possible by any working and useful means." - ayeaye


Please see the drawing below.


When a bar magnet loses its magnetic alignment, it becomes demagnetized.

If there is another magnet in the demagnetized magnet's magnetic field, then impact of this loss of internal magnetic alignment of the one magnet (this demagnetization) takes time to cross the field to the other magnet.

And so, while the demagnetized magnet instantly loses its attraction (or repulsion if alternatively aligned) with the other magnet, it takes some time for this loss of attraction (or repulsion) to make its way across the distance to the other magnet.

This is simply how Physics works.

There is no "shielding" or other "means" included in this thought experiment.

And if one magnet is moving (and accelerating) while the other one is not, then if it is the moving magnet that is demagnetized, the acceleration immediately stops and so there is less kinetic energy in the end, while if it is the fixed in place magnet that is demagnetized, the acceleration continues for a time longer, and so there is more kinetic energy in the end.

And since both systems started out with identical amounts of energy, the Law of Conservation of Energy tells us that there must be identical amounts of energy in both systems at the end.

But this does not happen in the set up (thought experiment) I propose in the link in the OP.  (Unless, you can see something I don't.)

And therefore the Law of Conservation of Energy has been shown to be logically flawed, it is internally inconsistent, and therefore it is false.

That's it!


-


"... only the experiments can finally show ..." – ayeaye

I completely disagree.

Logic is logic.

If a theory is internally logically inconsistent then it is by definition false.

Experiments can always be argued about as to whether the test was done right and as to whether the results were accurately measured and so on.

But, logic is logic.

And if the Law of Conservation of Energy is internally logically inconsistent (as I believe I have shown in the argument in the link in the OP) then we know this "Law" is false to a logical certainty.  (No experiments needed.)


-


"It is like i am talking about the fence, and you are talking about the hole in the fence. Then when i say that the fence is white, you disagree because the hole in the fence is not white." - ayeaye

Well ... I'm always open to not only the possibility that I may have gotten something wrong or that I've been less than clear, but I'm also open to the real fact that I will get things wrong and I will be less than clear.

I am always trying!

However, you may also want to take some time to consider if it is within the realm of possibilities that you have gotten some things wrong or have been less than clear.  Is it possible?  ... I don't know.

You use the terms "asymmetric field" and "uneven field."  And I'm fine with letting you define these terms as you see fit and then working with that definition.

In your Reply #17 your write "Magnetic field is asymmetric."  And then, in that reply, you go on to show that the "magnetic field is asymmetric" by pointing out that the magnetic field lines at a single pole are unevenly distributed and that the magnetic fields lines between the two poles can differ from one another.

Okay fine.

And then in your second drawing in Reply #21, you show a weighted round wheel in a hypothetical "asymmetrical" gravitational field.  In that drawing you show the gravitational field lines bunched up on the left side of the wheel and the gravitational field lines spread further apart on the right side of the wheel (... just as in Reply #17 you talked about a "asymmetric magnetic field" with the magnetic field lines unevenly distributed).

At no point, that I can see, in text of Reply #21 (or in the text of your posts that proceeded this drawing or that immediately followed this drawing) do you clarify that you are using the term "asymmetric" in regards to a magnetic field (Reply #17) and in regards to a gravitational field (Reply #21) in two different ways. At no point, do I see you write that what you mean by "asymmetric" when it comes to magnetism is to include the idea that "magnetic attraction is omnidirectional" while, at the same time, you mean by "asymmetric" when it comes to gravity is to, differently, include the idea that "gravity is unidirectional."

If I'm reading you posts correctly, you use the term "asymmetrical" to apply to both magnetic fields and to gravitational fields, but in the latter you mean something different than in the former (unidirectional versus omnidirectional), but you never (if I've read your posts correctly) actually make this distinction.

In Reply #27 you write "This is not an analogy of the gravitational field, because the magnetic field and gravitational field are different."

Gravitational attraction and magnetic attraction are not unidirectional.

Your proposal of a unidirectional gravitational field (as part of an "asymmetrical," unevenly dispersed gravitational field) appears to me to be nothing more than a matter of stipulation.  And I'm fine with that (for the purposes of a thought experiment).  But, I cannot then see why you or I or someone else cannot propose that same thought experiment, but with magnets, and also stipulate a unidirectional magnetic field.

You seem to be saying that there is some real fundamental difference between gravitational attraction and magnetic attraction, while then separately also hypothetically (fictionally) stipulating a unidirectional gravitational field (that you don't seem to also think can be hypothetically (fictionally) equally stipulated with a magnetic field).

I don't get it.

If you are being clear about all of this ... if I am just simply dumb and daft ... then I apologize.

I've worked hard to try to understand you.  I think your design (4/4) is cool.  I don't think it will ultimately work (as you found out in your experiment).  But I'm willing to take the time and effort to get to (clarify) and work through your theory.

But, maybe I'm just so mentally clouded that I can't see the clarity that you have presented.  ... I don't know.

Again, at no time do I see you distinguish an "asymmetrical" magnetic field (your Post #17) from an "asymmetrical" gravitational field (your Post #21), in that the former obviously is not unidirectional and the latter is obviously unidirectional until I finally drilled down on the discussion and brought it to a fine point in my Reply #30 (and thereabouts).



Take care!

- Zet



(PS:  Any additional ideas on my argument against the Law of Conservation of Energy linked to the OP?)





---



norman6538 ,


Thanks for the link.  Cool model.

If I understand it correctly, you start on one side ("two o'clock") where there are no magnets, and then you swing down to where the magnets start ("six o'clock"), and then you swing up the other side where there are more magnets until you reach the end of these magnets ("twelve o'clock"), and then you swing back down past these other magnets back to the point of greatest attraction ("six o'clock).  (The magnets between six o'clock and twelve o'clock seem to be attracted to the moving magnet but also each one individually seems to be less attracted to the moving magnet than the one magnet at six o'clock.)

Is this what is happening?

If so, this is exactly what I would expect to happen.

If you just had the moveable magnet and the magnet at six o'clock, then what I would expect that in a frictionless world the moveable magnet would swing from two o'clock (where it starts) to ten o'clock on the other side (the same distance from the fixed magnet)and then back again, and it would do this forever.  And if this two magnet arrangement were to be done in a real friction filled world, then I would expect the moveable magnet to swing back and forth for a bit and then come to a stop next to the fixed in place (six o'clock) magnet.

If I understood the mechanics of your video correctly (and there are no magnets on the one side where you start, but there are magnets on the other side between six o'clock and twelve o'clock) then I would expect the moveable magnet (which starts out at two o'clock) to reach a distance further from the point of greatest attraction (six o'clock), as it does, and then eventually end up in the end at the point of greatest attraction (six o'clock), which it does.

Did I get the set up in your video wrong?

If I did, if I'm wrong about your proposal, please let me know!

Again, cool model!



BTW:  Do you have any thoughts about my argument against (my hopeful disproof of) the Law of Conservation of Energy linked to in the OP of this thread?



Take care!

- Zet


(PS:  Could you put your animation on Youtube, so that we don't have to download any extra files?  Thx.)