The argument for pepetual motion

[rakarskiy]

I agree that modern science cannot give a precise answer about the nature of electric and magnetic fields, which would be complete without mutual exclusions. But this in no way prevents engineers from building electromechanical, electrical, electromagnetic and magnetic devices. Produce such a device as a magnet, electromagnet and other components.

The electric field and magnetic field in the usual state of a dipole defining the poles of interaction. The electric field lends itself to such a function as "accumulation", but only in the state of a monopole or asymmetric dipole. The state of an electric dipole in equilibrium cannot be without external action by an electric monopole. Magnetic field has two states Dipole and Anapole (Anapole is a circular state of magnetic flux, example Guardian EDA) Magnetic dipole cannot be asymmetric, it is always symmetric.  Magnetic field is the result of action, it cannot be accumulated, it can always only be generated. Since current force is an eddy magnetic field, electric circuits and magnetic circuits are based on the closure of magnetic flux. 

I don't care much about the physicist's view, I am only interested in the engineer's view and decision on how to apply this to the design of devices.
 

[onepower]

rakarskiy

I agree that modern science cannot give a precise answer about the nature of electric and magnetic fields, which would be complete without mutual exclusions. But this in no way prevents engineers from building electromechanical, electrical, electromagnetic and magnetic devices. Produce such a device as a magnet, electromagnet and other components.

Well said, I always found it odd that many people claim something can/cannot happen because of the Conservation of Energy. As if it were something or a thing when it's only a theory. It's a good theory and I believe it's true but that's not the point. All experiments and observations should prove the COE is valid not vice versa. Ergo, starting with the conclusion then cherry picking facts to support it is not real science it is biased.

As you implied, in the real world Engineer's don't need to abide by any supposed rules of science they only need to prove something works. The demonstrable proof comes first then the science to support the idea not vice versa.

AC

[dsquared18]

I like the way both of you approach this.

If I may, I'd just like to add that the laws & theories we have today only describe 5% of the known universe as commonly understood. So-called 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy' making up the vast majority of space.

There's plenty of room for new discoveries, new sources of energy to tap into - if we can only figure out how to do that! 

D²

[stivep]

As you implied, in the real world Engineer's don't need to abide by any supposed rules of science they only need to prove something works. The demonstrable proof comes first then the science to support the idea not vice versa.
AC

Absolutely agree.
However patent office wants  to know how you did it.
Kapanadze didn't know why it works but how to build it /
His application was rejected.

So if for example this  transformer (toroidal transformer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPXtiJaSiKA
was popular enough in 50ties  instead of this one:
https://edisontechcenter.org/Transformers.html
it  would be cheaper now than  regular  one, using transformer silicon steel sheets
the same was with   first  microwave  it was 50k and now is $120.
But for that  Patent had to be approved. some time ago only 
because they could explain  why it works.
So any "magic" device  presenting  whatever (possible  or impossible)  needs inventor  ability  to explain it.

However in USA if you come to PO and put on the table working device ,  they must examine it.
and can not deny patent if it works despite  your  ability to explain  how it works.
minimum paper  work is required.
Wesley

[rakarskiy]

https://overunity.com/19511/the-argument-for-pepetual-motion/msg580348/#msg580348

The Law of Conservation of Energy is valid only for a closed system.

For example, a transformer is conditionally a closed system, a transformation with an index higher than 1 can not be. By the way, the magnetic field in the transformer is equal to the field of excitation of the input winding. And the output is not equal to this field, such a paradox. If the EMF of the output winding was calculated by the magnetic field of full hysteresis, as in a generator we would have a generator, as a result there is a completely different process, mutual induction between turns. All this I describe in detail and thoroughly in my work. I hope to complete it, some circumstances have opened up that even the combination of Berden and Flynn MEG I have in doubt. Or something crucial to fulfill the generator condition is not specified. It is necessary to check a number of engineering possible solutions, the decisive one should be simple and not visible for demonstrations as in Raselli1.

The GENERATOR is already an open system, generation is always with an index greater than 1, if we make correct calculations, the amplification goes through the magnetic field, which is amplified due to the properties of the core. And if we use permanent magnets, there is no cost for field excitation at all. Mechanical rotation of the rotor, it is a condition for the creation of rotation, field excitation cost part of the consciousness of the condition, not the mechanism of conversion.

And then there are all the patent offices under the hood of the system, and interested corporations. Only open source code.