Increase the potential energy without any energy

[Low-Q]

Yes, I progress to find another methods than mechanic spheres like electromagnetism. But my mechanic device in the pdf file is finished, it is logical, and all the calculations are in the file because I used logic, I proved the sum of energy is not conserved with a theoretical device. I don't know what I can add to be more clear. For you it is not logical ?

Well, I'm not very good at symbols and equations. The only thing my gut feeling says, is that if a sum or a product of different factors is higher or lower than the numbers and factors you put in to the equation, the calculations must be incorrectly done.


It must be issues with the calculation. And if the result cannot be tested and proven physically, we cannot disprove or confirm the concept. That leaves behind an idea with lack of credibility. An idea that is pretty much useless.


As you understand, scepsism fluorishes when people can't physically prove a given idea or calculation.


People need to observe physical results. Knowing, rather than believing or making assumtions and early conclusions.


Maybe you should go through the calculations one more time and carefully scan the calculations and factors for missing parts. I'm 100% sure something is missing, or added one time too many.


Vidar

[activ25]

Low-Q: it is possible to test this device but in a lab, and it is possible to build one example with real components. Oh, yes, I would like to have practical prove that the device works. I take hypothesis to cancel all calculations, it is only logical demonstration. For me it is better than a long list of calculations  where a mistake is easily done. In physics, even in theory with all simplifications, the sum of energy is always constant.  My device is like a glass of water with water on Earth, I can take hypothesis: gravity is constant, no friction and the energy is conserved. Here, like I need to have a changing in the direction of the attraction, I need the springs  (the springs are there to create an artificial gravity) and it is very logical. I don't need any complex equation or calculation.

webby1:  my device needs to have a function discontinuous, it is very important, in the contrary, the theorem of Noether is applicable and the energy is conserved, so I need to have something that moves outside the device. With your example the function is continuous (or I didn't understand your example).


Thanks to try to help me

[Low-Q]

Stretched springs carry potential energy that someone has put in there. If this is called artificial gravity, someone has done the work to make it be that way in advance. That work is perfectly conserved, as the other factors in the design. Isn't it?
Nothing has been violated. Everything is conserved. Nothing new.


Vidar

[activ25]

I counted the potential energy at start and at final in my equations (and thinking). There is a difference that I called 'e' at final.

[Magluvin]

Well, not everything is conserved...

If we have a 10uf cap at 10v and connect it in parallel to another identical 10uf read 0v and after the caps even out to 5v each, we lost 50% of the total energy that was in the cap initially at 10v, when we calc the total power left in both caps resting at 5v. The argument was that it is resistance that burned off the 50% energy in the transfer from cap to cap.  Well thats not true. The resistance only changes the time it takes for the caps to go from 10v and 0v to 5v and 5v each. If we could count the electron imbalance of the 10v cap and count how much of that imbalance is now distributed between the 2 caps, that count would remain the same whether the resistance was 1Mohm or if it were 0 ohm as in ideal conditions. So, where did we lose the 50% in the transfer? And, did we get the heat for free under those conditions being that we didnt use the energy via the transfer of electron imbalance to do any work other than expand the pressure of the 10v cap into a capacitance that is twice the size, 10uf to 20uf, caps parallel. In the ideal situation we get no heat yet we still lost 50% of the energy we started with in the 10v 10uf cap. Electron count. You simply cannot get 7.07v in each cap from a single 10v cap. That would solve it for resistance fault if it did come out that way for the ideal situation of no resistance. But the electron count would say no. To get 7.07v in each cap from a single 10v cap would require and addition of electrons in the system, which isnt going to happen either. Resistance does not eat electrons. Resistance converts the passage of electrons into heat. The electron count remains the same, resistance or not.

So the 50% energy loss. Where did we lose it? There is an article on this that Poynt had found on the subject after he took notice of what I was claiming on this. They say the same thing, where did we lose the 50% as it wasnt conserved in the ideal situation when going by electron count.

So energy conservation needs a better looking at in other situations also.

Mags