Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[tinu]

Lol. The above is so full of mistakes that it?s not even worth commenting unless the objective is to make traffic. The other possible objective, which you apparently don?t like, is ridicule.

For the sake of making traffic, selling adds and increasing your post counting: what do you mean by ?system? above? Just in one sentence, if possible. Note that you use ?system? twice (in respect to A and C).

Cheers,
Tinu

[Omnibus]

Lol. The above is so full of mistakes that it?s not even worth commenting unless the objective is to make traffic. The other possible objective, which you apparently don?t like, is ridicule.

On the contrary, my text is based on argument while the text above is obviously frivolous and therefore it is what?s ridiculous. The fact that you are the one making them doesn?t make the above unsubstantiated statements substantiated.

As to what is meant by ?system?, the meaning is the same as in the link you gave above?it is the object of our examination. To make it clearer, draw an imaginary boundary around the hills A and B you presented, including the ball and you?ll get a picture of the system we?re talking about.

Thus, traffic and selling ads has nothing to do with the above. The above only shows that you?ve missed physics101 but are nevertheless eager to discuss something you don?t quite understand.

[Omnibus]

Here?s a little more. If we make the above thought boundary adiabatic, that is, not allowing heat to be exchanged with the environment, the energy contained in the system due to motion of the molecules, energy of the chemical bonds and so on, is constant. To simplify this argument we consider that initial energy (when the ball is at A) as zero.

Now, lifting the ball from A to B introduces potential energy to the system which, if CoE is obeyed, will express itself in equivalent quantities of other energies (ultimately heat) when the ball is let go from B directly back to A.

In our case, however, the potential energy the body loses when let go from B is more than that imparted to it. Therefore, at C the system will find itself with greater amount of various energies (ultimately heat) than the expected amount from what was introduced into the system in the form of potential energy.

Thus, our system which cannot exchange heat with the surroundings will be heated more than it would be expected from the amount of energy imparted to it.


Let me add also this -- that extra heat has come about at the expense of no energy source. It is nether due to the energy imparted to the system nor is it due to energy within the system (it was accepted as zero at the onset) but is only due to the special conditions we've placed our ball in the force field allowing for such energy to be obtained out of no energy source.

[tinu]

Nope. You?re doing worst and worst.

In the initial state (when ball initially at A) the system has zero energy.

Obviously, the ball placed in A will move to C, thus either its energy can not be considered zero or, if you insist to take it zero by convention, you necessarily have to introduce (to get familiar with?!) negative potential energies. But you obviously haven?t and because of that you fall into another error:

However, at C the system has total energy in various forms, equivalent to mg(h1 + h2)

The above crippled ?physics? samples don?t make even for the adds they sell.

Furthermore, you failed to see elementary and evidently points since you considered my post unsubstantiated (but your inability to see doesn?t make it so).
The rest of the first post goes into several similar errors. Shall I continue? The last two posts are even more catastrophic.

Cheers,
Tinu

[Omnibus]

Quote from: Omnibus on Today at 10:22:25 AM
In the initial state (when ball initially at A) the system has zero energy.
Obviously, the ball placed in A will move to C, thus either its energy can not be considered zero or, if you insist to take it zero by convention, you necessarily have to introduce (to get familiar with?!) negative potential energies. But you obviously haven?t and because of that you fall into another error:

Not at all. The ball when at its initial position A will not go to C. The way the hills you draw will not collapse. The energy to build the machine, to raise the hills, to put the ball at A, the energy of the chemical bonds, thermal motion and so on is never taken into account when an energy balance we?re talking about is carried out. That?s physics101.

Quote from: Omnibus on Today at 10:22:25 AM
However, at C the system has total energy in various forms, equivalent to mg(h1 + h2)
The above crippled ?physics? samples don?t make even for the adds they sell.

This is senseless blabber. You?d better straighten up your ?physics?.

Furthermore, you failed to see elementary and evidently points since you considered my post unsubstantiated (but your inability to see doesn?t make it so).

What points. Yours is just frivolous blabber, as I already said. Don?t make such pronouncements because a confused person such as you must not feel he?s a judge.

The rest of the first post goes into several similar errors. Shall I continue? The last two posts are even more catastrophic.

Continue with what? With the inconsequential blabber? No. The answer is, no, you should not continue.