Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

movieclipsfree

movie clips free

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 81724
  • *Latest: Muneel

  • *Total Posts: 485555
  • *Total Topics: 14274
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 148
  • *Total: 152

Facebook

Author Topic: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy  (Read 25389 times)

Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #15 on: April 19, 2015, 02:19:42 AM »
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.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Zetetic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #16 on: April 19, 2015, 05:11:40 AM »
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?)




Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #17 on: April 19, 2015, 01:07:08 PM »
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.

Offline Zetetic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2015, 08:51:46 PM »

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?)




Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2015, 02:23:30 AM »
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.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2015, 02:23:30 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Zetetic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2015, 04:55:59 PM »

hey ayeaye ...


“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.” –ayeaye



Is the moving object moving around the curved sphere?

That’s all I got.

I read the above quote three times.  I don’t think I understand much of it.  And, therefore, only one small question is all I could come up with.

The drawing in one of your videos, I believe it was in 4/4, really helped me understand your machine.

Could you please draw out the concept in the above quote?  That would be cool.

“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.” – ayeaye

Maybe I’ll understand this better ... after seeing the drawing.  Right now I feel like I’m applying my understanding about magnetism to your words about magnetism ... and that leads us straight to confusion.

So ... I’ll wait for the drawing (... if there is one coming ... ? ... I hope).

“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.” –ayeaye

The important thing to remember when buying rubberized magnets is that most commercial applications prefer to use such magnets with multiple poles per side (“multipole magnets”).  They do sell rubberized magnets that has one pole on one side the pole on the other side (and they come in the dimensions I listed above ... or at least they did years ago; “monopole”).  And our type of type of pmm experiments typically call for “monopole” rubberized magnets cut up and reconfigured.

And, yes, the rubberized magnets I used were much weaker than a regular old ceramic magnet.

Cool.

“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.” – ayeaye

My skateboarding friend agrees to do me a favor.  (I’m an old man.  If I tried to do this, I’d break my legs.)  He goes to the store and buys a very large industrial spring.  He places in my back yard, on the north end of my backward, by the skateboard ramp.  He then climbs up to the top of the ramp, without his skateboard, and jumps off from the 10 feet and lands on the large industrial spring.

The spring compresses and he locks it is place.  The spring is then rolled across the grass in my backyard, horizontally to direction of the gravitational field, to another friend waiting at the other end, the south end, of the ramp.  She sets the compressed spring on the ground and climbs on top of it.  She and the other skater both weight the exact same amount.  She then unreleases the compressed spring and she is set into motion upwards.

Where she is, the south side of my back yard, the gravity is weaker than where the spring was compressed, on the north side of my backyard. 

And so ... she will reach a higher height.

In the end (in our closed system of the Universe) there is more gravitational potential energy (gpe) than at the start.

Yes.  This is true.  Is that what you are getting at with the idea of “springs”?  Yes?  No?  Something else?

If so ... energy is conserved.

It took energy to roll the grass skateboard from north (stronger graviatational pull on the board and compressed spring) to the south (weaker g pull) and this will be exactly (.... yes, exactly, not a little more not a little less ... according to the Law of Conservation of Energy ...) the same as the amount of energy in increased gpe (height of chick on the south side at the end minus height of the dude on the north end at the start).

And pushing the board and spring into motion like this means using up energy and increased gpe is an energy gain.  And ... so ... since the two amounts of energy are exactly the same (according to this well established and basic Law of Physics) and since one is a negative and the other is a positive ... then they cancel each other out in terms of the total amount of energy within the Universe.  The total amount remains the same , while some of the forms have changed.

Or ... did I totally miss what you are trying to get at with springs?

“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.” – ayeaye

I believed this.  And ... perhaps its important to believe this ... somewhere along the way.  I think I believed it for a few days ... maybe a week.  It was back in the early days of pmm for me.  After you learn the concept you can apply it in all sorts of different places.

The concept in the original skateboarding example is the same concept in the above quote as to why this does not lead to an energy gain is the same.

However, if it was a frictionless world, yes, it will spin continuously.  But there is no energy gain.  It just spins like anything would spin, in a frictionless world, forever (no gravity needed).

However, if you’re thinking about getting an energy gain from this.  Nope.  It doesn’t happen.  Again, I believed in this for a week or so.

As the weight swings along the bottom of the wheel, down towards gravity and also moving horizontally, it is both moving into the greater gravitational field of the Earth below but also into the lesser gravitational field along the horizontal, and so there will both be a tendency to accelerate and to decelerate (and one might be greater than the other but this will be balanced out by the equal imbalance in the inverse on the other, swinging up along the bottom of the wheel, side.  (And a similar inverse dynamic occurs on the top between the two sides.))

And when I realized this, lo all those many years ago, I stop believing in what I had believed in , for a week or so.

It’s a cool idea.  I love it.

“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.” – ayeaye

Yeah, it’s beyond me.  I thought I was a smart guy ... but I can’t get this stuff.

I think maybe the drawing I requested (... if you’ve got the time ...) could really help.

“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.” – ayeaye

Right.  I did it again.

I used my understanding of the magnetic concepts we are working with with your words.  Damn it.  I did it again.

You are right to say “No” to me.

My quote (the quote of me) in your last response was me thinking of a symmetrical magnetic field.  So ... I stand by what I wrote.  What I said is true when dealing with a symmetrical magnetic field.  (You can have asymmetrical magnetic fields in terms of non mirrored shaped of fields at the poles, but I was thinking about a symmetrical field when I wrote what you quoted.  My bad.)

And, further, I think we need to talk more about your design 4/4 particularly in regards to what I think I’m reading in the above quote (and also based on, comparison, with what you built in 4/4).

Are you thinking that in 4/4 you can move from one magnet to the next and not get the same repulsion resistance you got at the start (to get the magnet into its starting position) in 3/4?  If so, that’s true.

But are you also thinking that you retain in 4.4 the same counterclockwise push from the magnets (the now circle of magnets) that you got from the magnets (the curved row of magnets) in 3.4?  If so, then I don’t agree with you.

And that’s cool.  We can agree to disagree.  My opinion (... my analysis ...) of why I think you get the results you get in 3.4 are already posted in a previous post and don’t need to be repeated here.

I think when you go from 3.4 to 4.4 you lose both the resistance you felt with you hand in 3.4 and the leftward rotation you saw in 3.4 (... I should say , they both diminish not that you lose both).

But, that’s just my opinion.

“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” – ayeaye

Yes it is.

“Because some energy may come from an unknown source.” – ayeaye

If you’re hinting at something like God or interdimensional beings or any other para-physics concept ... I’m down for that.

But ... the Law of Conservation of Energy is about our physical universe.  If God where to poke into our physical dimension give the skateboarder a little extra push ... so that on the other end he will go a little higher ... and thus end up with more gpe in the end than at the start, ... if this were to happen then we would no longer have a “closed system.”  Energy was introduced in from the outside.  And, so, yeah, sure if you introduce more energy into a system from an “unknown source” then there will be more energy in that system in the end.  This is axiomatic.

But maybe this isn’t what your saying?  I don’t know.  I too a shot at it.  Maybe I’ve totally misunderstood you.

I’m trying!

Take care my on line brother in the quest for pmm (or whatever term you prefer to use) ,



- Zet

 

(PS:  Sorry ayeaye, I didn’t have time to proof read it.  And I’m a terrible speller and such.)



Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2015, 08:47:21 PM »
Zetetic,

Ok, drawings, first is about asymmetric field in general, and second is about an asymmetric gravitational field. What concerns the gravitational field, you may consider that there the sphere i talked about, is very big, so we may consider that there the field lines are parallel.

Again, this constantly rotating wheel in the gravitational field is not possible in reality, because the gravitational field is not asymmetric anywhere. This is only an abstract thought experiment to show that it is possible to extract energy from an asymmetric field, just because the field is asymmetric. Again, this is only a kind of mathematically so, in the reality the energy in that case may come from some other source, and there is no violation of the conservation of energy.

This is not about pmm (permanent magnet motors) only, this is more theoretical. When overunity is possible because the magnetic field is asymmetric, then it may be possible also elsewhere where magnetic field appears. Electric field may be asymmetric too, as magnetic field.

You should consider that my drawing ability is not good. I have a logical thinking and not visual thinking, so my visual capabilities are poor. So take them as they are.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2015, 08:47:21 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Zetetic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #22 on: April 21, 2015, 03:45:51 AM »


ayeaye,


Thank you for the drawings!


(BTW:  I like your drawings.  I always find them very helpful.)



First, if I may, let’s start with your second drawing (in Reply #21) and the concept therein.

In drawing E below, the skateboarder is pulled downward at E.1 due to gravitational attraction.  As he does so he accelerates.  And, in that same drawing, the skateboarder is also pulled downward at E.3 due to gravitational attraction.  But here, as he is moving upwards, he decelerates.

Since the force of gravity is greater at E.1 than it is at E.3, the speed that he reaches at the bottom of E.1 is greater than the speed he needs at E.3 to reach (and exceed) the height from which he started (at E.1).

I believe you and I agree about this.  Yes?  No?

However, as he moves across the horizontal (from the E.1 side to the E.3 side) he is moving against (away from) the greater gravitational field.  As he moves horizontally he decelerates.  E.2 is the exact same thing as if he was moving “up” and away from the strength of Earth’s gravitational field.  And when he moves “up” he decelerates.  Here to, E.2, he will decelerate as he moves horizontally.

So, when he starts to rise at the far end of the ramp (E.3) he starts out at a slower speed than he reached when at the bottom of first side of the ramp (E.1).

Yes, there is less deceleration when he moves up against a lesser gravitational field than there was acceleration when he moved down in a greater gravitational field.  But, he has already slowed down while moving from E.1 to E.3.

This is what I think is (this is what I have called) “your oversight.”

Yes?  No?

I get the impression that you are thinking that if you move from a greater gravitational field to a lesser gravitation field horizontally that there is no deceleration (as there is when you move from a greater gravitational field to a lesser gravitational field upwards).

Yes?  No?

And the same exact thing is true with a round wheel.

In drawing F the same thing happens.  Yes, there is more acceleration at F.1 than there is deceleration at F.3.  Yes.  But there is also deceleration as the weight moves horizontally (F.2). 

The difference between the two examples is that in the skateboard example the vertical movements and the horizontal movement are separated out.  But the same thing is happening with the round wheel.  It’s just that with the round wheel the vertical movements and the horizontal movement always occur together.

But it’s the same thing.

(BTW:  My analysis above and my analysis of the same in Reply #20 get to the basic point, but ... after thinking about it for a while, the Conservation of Energy analysis is much more complex.  If you are lower in a stronger gravitational field and higher in a weaker gravitation field you have the same amount of “gravitational potential energy.”  I’m sorry about this mistake.  I make them all the time.  But this limited (and somewhat incorrect) analysis is better for what we are talking about right now, I think.  That further complexity is not needed, and, in fact, I think right now would be a distraction.)

The wheel in your second drawing in Reply #21 will not gain in energy.  It is not the basis of an OU device.  I love it.  I’ve thought about it too.  But the mechanics needed are just not there.  There is a decrease in velocity in both the skateboard ramp and in the round wheel with weight as they move horizontally against the force (the horizontal force) of gravity.

Yes?  No?

-

I have a better understanding of your idea in the first drawing.  Thank you for that.  But, before we move onto that (which I think perhaps is the crux of your thinking behind 3/4 and 4/4) I want to make sure we first understand one another about the second drawing and what I’ve said.  (And, if so, then we can get to the more interesting stuff and your pmm attempt!)

-

Please let me know that you think.  Please let me know if I have understood you (and your “oversight”) or if I’m wrong (if I’m the one with the “oversight”) about what you are saying!

Take care.


- Zet



Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #23 on: April 21, 2015, 04:32:08 AM »
Zetetic,

I don't understand why do you keep saying that the horizontal deceleration removes all the additional speed, i don't understand that.

Whether the wheel starts to rotate and how fast it rotates, only depends on the difference of the strength of the gravitational field in the areas of higher gravity and lower gravity. When that difference is great, the wheel certainly starts to rotate. Also when there is friction, so yes it can provide energy.

If this helps you to understand better, think about a vertical wheel, you put a small ball on it, and you blow air to it from above. If the flow of air is much stronger at the left side, where the gravitational field is stronger on the drawing, than at the right side, then the wheel starts to rotate counterclockwise, right? This is the same as the wheel in the asymmetric gravitational field, only the ball there is instead of the weight. This is an experiment which one can do, and see that it works. But if this doesn't help you to understand better, then better forget it, i didn't write it to add confusion.

Offline Zetetic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #24 on: April 21, 2015, 06:16:18 AM »

ayeaye,



I think I talk too much.

Okay.  My many many words don’t seem to have expressed the idea I was trying to express.

Okay.




Here is a real world experiment.  And you already have the rotating disk and the magnets.  (See the drawing below.)

On the rotating disk attach a magnet.  And then either tilt a bar magnet relative to the disk as shown in the drawing below or stack and glue a larger bar magnet and a small bar magnet together and place them relative to the disk as shown in the drawing below.

(The important thing is that the poles of the magnet on the disk and the poles of the bar magnet(s) are oppositely and therefore attractively aligned.)

There is more magnetic pull on the left side of the disk toward the bar magnets and less magnetic pull on the right side of the disk towards the bar magnets in both cases.

Yes?  No?

And this the magnetic equivalent of what we’ve been talking about with more downward gravitational pull on one side of a wheel and less downward gravitational pull on the other side of that wheel.

Yes?  No?

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the magnet on the left side disk will spin towards the bar magnet and then back away from the bar magnet on the right side.  And it will spin farther away on the right side than it started on the left side (minus, of course, friction).

Yes?  No?



Take care and let me know,


- Zet


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #24 on: April 21, 2015, 06:16:18 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #25 on: April 21, 2015, 06:34:25 AM »
The magnet on the disc moves towards the bar magnet and then stays there. No, this is not what we have been talking about. The fields there may be asymmetric, but this asymmetry is not used for overunity. What happens there is completely symmetric.

Offline Zetetic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #26 on: April 21, 2015, 06:54:40 AM »
ayeaye,


Well, I guess I really do need to slow down and ask more questions.

In the drawing below a body is able to move horizontally.  In the one case there is more magnetic pull on the left side than on the right.  The magnetic body will move to the left.  And I the other case there is more gravitational pull (more mass) on the left side than on the right.  The body will move to the left.

Yes?  No?

What am I missing?


Thanks,


- Zet



Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #27 on: April 21, 2015, 07:13:26 AM »
This is not an analogy of the gravitational field, because the magnetic field and gravitational field are different. I showed the gravitational field example just as one example of an asymmetric field, and showed that asymmetric field can provide overunity because of asymmetry. But the interaction with the field happens the way that field works.

Offline Zetetic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #28 on: April 21, 2015, 07:26:37 AM »
ayeaye,


Will the skateboarder in the lower half of the drawing in Reply #26 move to the left?  Will he horizontally move towards the greater gravitational field?

If yes, then ...

Why would the same dynamic not also slow down the weight on the wheel in the second drawing in Reply #21 as it moves away from the greater gravitational field and into the lesser gravitational field?


Or, am I having ... yet another ... brain cloud?


Thanks and cheers!


- Zet




Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #29 on: April 21, 2015, 07:38:29 AM »
Horizontal movement in the gravitational field slows down only because of friction.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #29 on: April 21, 2015, 07:38:29 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: