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.

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

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 489594
  • *Total Topics: 14406
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 126
  • *Total: 132

Facebook

Author Topic: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy  (Read 28683 times)

Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #45 on: April 26, 2015, 10:27:59 AM »
Zetetic, i think you should explain your theory some more, your last drawing really gives no idea of the horns or tail. So you say some energy is lost because the magnetic field is switched off? How can a potential energy be transformed to another form of energy i don't well understand either. It seems that when there is a law, then the equations always have to be written so that the law is valid. Which maybe cannot be done in some cases. You may have a point, but you should explain more.

If you can draw faster with a pencil, do that and capture the image with a web cam. I think when it's easier and faster, then it's better than the high quality drawings made with some software. In some science discussion some asked me, did i draw these drawings on a napkin. Absolutely wrong, i drew them on a packing paper, because this was the only paper i had under hand. Use simple means to do things, this may make all the difference between doing and not doing. And i'm more into thinking, so these practical things are rather a nuisance.

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 #46 on: April 26, 2015, 09:22:44 PM »


“... i think you should explain your theory some more” - ayeaye


Gladly, I will.  Thank you for asking!

-

“... your last drawing really gives no idea of the horns or tail.” - ayeaye


Yeah, that was less than clear.  The drawing in my last post here in this thread was one of the four drawings that are embedded in my argument in my Science Forums argument against the Law of Conservation of Energy (linked to in the OP here).

Yep, I guess by just reposting it here (with no context) was not helpful.  (Also, it somehow got corrupted when I posed it, unlike all of the other drawings I have posted on this forum in this thread that showed up just fine.  I don’t know, but again, not helpful.)


-


“How can a potential energy be transformed to another form of energy i don't well understand either.” - ayeaye

If I’m standing in my backyard and I throw a ball up into the air, it slows down as it rises and eventually comes to a stop.

When the ball left my hand it was in motion.  This motion is a form of energy (“kinetic energy”).  And this motion is a certain amount of kinetic energy, say 10 units of kinetic energy.

After the ball rises and then comes to a stop, those 10 units of kinetic energy are now gone.  However, the Law of Conservation of Energy tells us that the total amount of energy within a closed system (such as the Universe, everything) will always remain constant.  But we are now missing 10 units of energy (kinetic energy) that was in our closed system but is now gone.

Energy is conserved, in this case, because as the ball rises and slows down (an increasing loss of kinetic energy) there is a corresponding and equal gain (assuming no friction) in “gravitational potential energy.”  When the ball is closer to the ground it has less potential energy and when the ball is farther from the ground it has more potential energy.  (A ball farther from the ground can do more “work” (in the technical Physics sense) than a ball closer to the ground and so it has more “potential” energy.)

And so, when the ball finally comes to a stop, there is a decrease in 10 units of kinetic energy and a corresponding and equal increase in 10 units of potential energy.  So the total amount of energy within the Universe remains the same (10 units of energy becomes 10 units of energy).

And now (to answer your question (... if I understand it correctly...)) as the ball at rest up in the air then falls back to my hand, that potential energy then becomes kinetic energy.   As the ball falls back down and speeds up, there is a loss of 10 units of potential energy and a corresponding and equal increase in 10 units of kinetic energy (as the now moving again ball smacks back into my hand).

Does this answer your question?  Did I miss it?  Do you already understand all of what I just wrote, but, rather, you were asking about the role of “potential energy” specifically in the context of my moving and demagnetized magnets thought experiment?

In my thought experiment in “Post #21” in the thread in Science Forums (liked to in the OP of this thread here) I take care to not talk about changing amounts of potential energy as the source for the violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy in my argument.  (The key word here is “amounts.”)

The concept of “how much potential energy” in mainstream Physics is a subtle and slippery one.  I can explain it here in this thread it you’d like (just ask).  But to go further into it now, would be a long discussion that ... I believe ... might be beyond the scope of your question (... I don’t know).

In my argument against the Law of Conservation of Energy there is , yes , definitely a loss of potential energy between the two magnetically attracted magnets when one of the them becomes demagnetized (“switched off”).  And this is definitely a key factor in that thought experiment.  But the amount (“how much”) potential energy lost is purposely avoided.  There is potential energy between the two magnets just before the moment of demagnetization and how much is irrelevant to the argument.

(The main point when it comes to potential energy in that argument of mine, is that the loss of mutual attraction takes time to cross the distance to the other non-demagnetized magnet.  But, I’ll explain this more below.)

I hope this has been helpful and addresses your question.  If not, please let me know!

-

Okay, back to the main point in your last post (“... i think you should explain your theory some more ...”).

The argument that I make in Science Forums is very carefully done.  I took about a week or so (not non-stop but every now and then and here and there) to write and rewrite and rewrite it.  I wanted to get the language and concepts clear and correct.

But, I can here give a more casual rendering of the same case.  And this may be helpful.

Say, I have two magnets on my desk and they are magnetically aligned.  I’m holding one in my hand and so it is fixed in place.  And say I glue the other magnet to the back of a little plastic toy car.  The magnet and toy car are also on my desk, but they are free to move.

The two magnets are in one another’s magnetic fields.  There is a tendency for them to move towards one another.  The one on the back of the toy car can and will while the other one in my hand is held in place and prevented from doing so.

As the toy car and magnet move towards the one in my hand they accelerate.  The faster they more the more “kinetic energy” there is.

At this point energy is conserved.  The increase in kinetic energy (motion) is matched by an equal and corresponding decrease in the potential energy between the two magnets due to their mutual attraction.  (5 units of energy gained comes from 5 units of energy lost).

At this point, all is good in the world (of mainstream Physics).

Before the two magnets (the one on the toy car and the one in my hand) collide, the magnet on the toy car is demagnetized (its internal magnetic alignment becomes unaligned).  How this demagnetization occurs is not so important in this more casual description.  For the sake of this description of my thought experiment, it just does.  (There are different ways to demagnetize a magnet and I’ll address that separately below.)

When the moving magnet on the back of the toy car becomes demagnetized it is no longer mutually attracted to the magnet in my hand.  (It’s no longer a magnetized magnet.)  And, so, it stops accelerating.

Assuming no friction, the now demagnetized magnet and toy car will continue to move at the same velocity that they had at the time of the demagnetization.

Now, if instead, when the two magnetized magnets (the one on the toy car and the one in my hand) are the same distance apart from one another in the scenario just described above, the magnet on the toy car remains magnetized while the magnet in my hand is demagnetized, the magnet on the toy car (and the toy car) will continue to accelerate for a moment longer.  When the magnet held still in my hand is demagnetized it is instantly no longer mutually attracted to the magnet on the toy car.  However, this loss of mutual attraction is not instantly “communicated” across the field to the other still magnetized magnet (the one on the toy car that is accelerating).  And so the magnet on the toy car will continue to accelerate for a moment longer (it will get faster), and so in the end, in this second scenario, we end up with more kinetic energy than in the first scenario (where it was the moving magnet that was demagnetized).

Okay, that was the practical set up of the thought experiment.  Now here is the theoretical importance.

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that “in a closed system, while energy can change forms the total amount of energy remains the same.”

In the first scenario (where the moving magnet is demagnetized) there is less kinetic energy in the end.  And in the second scenario (where the fixed in place magnet is demagnetized) there is more kinetic energy in the end.

So, if the total amount of energy within the Universe is to remain the same in both cases, then in the first scenario there must be more of another form of energy (to make up for the lesser amount of kinetic energy) and in the second scenario there must be less of this other form of energy (to counter the greater amount of kinetic energy).

In my argument linked to in the OP, at this point I leave it as a question:  “What is it?”

Because I believe that there is no answer to this question.  I believe that we end up with two different total amounts of energy within the closed system of the Universe in the two different cases.  I believe that there is not an offsetting increase and decrease in another form of energy between the two cases which keeps the total amount of energy within the Universe constant.

And, so, I believe this thought experiment shows a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy, and therefore this “Law” has been demonstrated to be false (and to a logical certainty).

That it!

(I realize this “casual” description is very long.  It is hard to make all of the relevant points in a shorter form.  That’s why I took so long and worked so hard on the argument linked to in the OP.  It took effort to get it down to two pages.)

I hope this helps!

Let me know if it doesn’t (or it if does)!


-


There are different ways to demagnetize a magnet.

(allcanadian alluded to this in his Reply #13; “... generating heat ...”, “... impact in itself ...”.)

Here is a link to a Wikipedia article on demagnetization:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetization#Demagnetization

You can demagnetize a ferromagnet by raising its temperature above a certain amount, and you can demagnetize a ferromagnet by striking it hard.


-


I hope this helps make my point (argument) clearer.  If not, please let me know.  I apologize for the lengthy length of it!  It’s harder to keep something short (and hit every point necessary) than it is to let it flow longer (while also hitting every point).  The argument linked to the OP is short and hits every point.

And thank you for continuing the conversation about my argument against (hopefully my disproof of) the Law of Conservation of Energy!

Let me know what you think!

(allcanadian , norman6538 , any more ideas?)


Thank you and take care!


- Zet




(PS:  I have spent a lot of time in Microsoft Paint.  And so it’s real easy for me to make my drawings there.  Whether a drawing is hand drawn or computer drawn, to me, makes no difference.  What matters, to me, is their clarity.  So, if you choose to hand draw and I choose to computer draw, I really see so difference.  Cheers!)






Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #47 on: April 26, 2015, 10:32:15 PM »
Ok, so your argument is like this. A fixed magnet, and a moving magnet, attracting each other. You do two experiments, in one experiment you demagnetize the moving magnet, and in the other you demagnetize the standing magnet. The input energy is the same. Then, as you argue, in the second case the output energy is greater, because the demagnetization of the standing magnet influences the moving magnet with a delay.

What about to modify the experiments, so that in both cases we demagnetize the standing magnet, only at different times. Then too i guess, the input energy is the same, the energy necessary for demagnetization is also the same, but the output energy is different.

As i see it, when assuming that there is a conservation of energy in that experiment, then at the moment of demagnetization, the potential energy of the moving magnet has to be transformed to some other form of energy. So when the kinetic energy of the moving magnet after the demagnetization will be less, the energy in some other form, like vacuum energy, will increase by the same amount.

I understand how a potential energy in a gravity transforms into a kinetic energy. But i don't see how that same potential energy can transform into another form of energy, such as heat, electromagnetic energy, vacuum energy, etc. This is why i asked about transforming potential energy to another form of energy.

Because as much as i can see it now, the potential energy in your experiment has to be transformed into another form of energy, at the moment of demagnetization. As there seems to be no possible way how this can happen, there should be a violation of the conservation of energy. It is possible that i overlook something, but this is how i see it by now.

Offline Zetetic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #48 on: April 27, 2015, 01:45:20 AM »

“Ok, so your argument is like this. A fixed magnet, and a moving magnet, attracting each other. You do two experiments, in one experiment you demagnetize the moving magnet, and in the other you demagnetize the standing magnet. The input energy is the same. Then, as you argue, in the second case the output energy is greater, because the demagnetization of the standing magnet influences the moving magnet with a delay.” - ayeaye


Yes.  Exactly.


-


“What about to modify the experiments, so that in both cases we demagnetize the standing magnet, only at different times. Then too i guess, the input energy is the same, the energy necessary for demagnetization is also the same, but the output energy is different.” -ayeaye



Right.

We have two systems that start out identical in terms of energy (see the drawing below).

In both systems there are two magnetically aligned magnets the same distance apart from one another (same potential energy).  Both magnets in both systems are at rest (no kinetic energy).  And in both systems there is a chemical heat pack (same chemical potential energy).

The magnets on the right in both systems are held in place, while the magnets on the left in both systems are allowed to move.

The two left magnets accelerate towards the fixed magnets on the right (there is an increase in kinetic energy and an equal decrease in potential energy; energy is conserved).

When the one magnet in the one system is a certain distance away from the fixed magnet, the chemicals are exposed to one another and it becomes demagnetized.  It immediately stops accelerating.

In the other system the other moving magnet continues to move and accelerate.  And then, at a point where it is moving faster and is closer to the fixed in place magnet, this moving magnet is demagnetized.  And it then stops accelerating.

So, in the end, in the one case there is less kinetic energy and in the other case there is more kinetic energy.

(The same thing can be done with demagnetizing the fixed magnets, and the analysis is essentially the same.)

If there is not also a corresponding greater amount of another form of energy in the case with less kinetic energy and a corresponding lesser amount of this other form of energy in the case with more kinetic energy, then the logic of the Law of Conservation of Energy has been violated and it has been proven false.

Yep.

And it may be the case that this scenario is also, in fact, a violation of, and disproof of, the Law of Conservation of Energy.

However, in this scenario there is some logical wiggle room.

It seems counterintuitive at first but the demagnetized state is the “higher energy state” and the magnetized state is the “lower energy state.”

If there is a ball at rest at the top of a hill it is in the “higher energy state” and if there is a ball at rest at the bottom of the hill it is in the “lower energy state.”  That is, it takes energy to move the ball from the bottom of the hill to the top, while the ball will naturally move from the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill if it is able.

Same thing with magnets.  It takes energy to take a magnetically aligned magnet and to then internally disalign it (to “demagnetize” it).  While, if able, the particles within a ferromagnet will naturally magnetically align.  And so, the magnetized state is the “lower energy state” (like the ball being at the bottom of the hill) and the demagnetized state is the “higher energy state (like the ball being at the top of the hill).

(This is called “spontaneous magnetization”:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_magnetization)

This can be counter intuitive because we normally think of a bar magnet as “having energy put into it” when it becomes magnetized.  And we normally think of a bar magnet as losing its magnetism over time if it is just sitting around for a long long time.  But this is not the case.  A magnet does not “spontaneously demagnetize.”  Some other force (energy) must demagnetize it.

Okay.  So why is this relevant to the thought experiment you have proposed?

Here is the “wiggle room.”

Since the demagnetized state is the higher energy state and the magnetized state is the lower energy state, that means, in this thought experiment, when the magnetized magnets become demagnetized there must (according to the Law of Conservation of Energy) be an equal decrease in another form of energy.  And here we have the increase in energy in the form of demagnetization offset by a corresponding and equal decrease in thermal energy.

Thermal energy (heat) is “micro kinetic energy;” it is movement but on a tiny scale.  And it is this microscopic movement that works against the tendency for the particles within the magnet to align with themselves.  And so, as the movement of the thermal energy moves the magnetically aligned particles into randomized disalignment, (“demagnetization”) there is a loss of this energy (thermal energy, micro kinetic energy); just as there is a slowing down (on a macro scale), a decrease in kinetic energy, when a motorcycle reaches a ramp and is redirected upwards (and to a higher energy state).  The same thing happens on a “micro” scale as occurs on a “macro” scale.

I hope all of this makes sense.  (?)  If not, please let me know!

Okay, so back to the thought experiment.

So, it takes energy to demagnetize a magnet, and in this case this energy comes from thermal energy.  In this thought experiment, when the chemicals in the pack are first exposed to one another there is a loss of chemical potential energy and there is an equal increase in thermal energy.  However, when that increased temperature then reaches and demagnetizes the magnets there is a loss in thermal energy and an equal increase in energy in the form of demagnetization.  Energy, at all times, is conserved.

Now, in this thought experiment, there is a difference between the two cases.  In the one case the moving magnet is demagnetized while further away from the fixed in place magnet while in the other case the moving magnet is demagnetized while it closer to the fixed in place magnet.  And the two magnets (the moving magnet and the fixed magnet) in the two cases are in each other’s magnetic fields.  And so, by being in each other’s magnetic fields they reinforce each other’s magnetic (internal magnetic) alignment.  And so, given that the closer together two magnets are, the greater the magnetic strength of each magnet is on the other magnet, ... this means it should take less energy to demagnetize the one moving magnet which is further from the fixed magnet (so, a lesser decrease in thermal energy) and more energy to demagnetize the other moving magnet which is closer to the fixed magnet (so, a greater decrease in thermal energy).

And so, here is the wiggle room.

In the case with less kinetic energy in the end (the further apart scenario) there is more thermal energy (less of a decrease) and in the case with more kinetic energy in the end (the closer together scenario) there is less thermal energy (more of a decrease).

And if the difference in kinetic energies between the two systems just happens to be exactly equal to the opposite difference in thermal energies between the two systems, then energy is conserved!

Now, whether or not these two differences are precisely equal is an empirical question.  Maybe they are (and energy is conserved and this Law is not violated) or maybe they are not (and energy is not conserved and this Law is then violated).

The point is, energy could be conserved.  There is a logical possibility that it could be conserved.


That was a lot of words.  I hope it wasn’t too much.


So, this is why in my thought experiment I stipulate “... when the two magnets in the two systems are the same distance apart ...” the moving magnet in the one system is demagnetized and in the other system the fixed magnet is demagnetized.

As I said, I spent a lot of time working on the argument linked to in the OP of this thread.  Something like “when they are the same distance apart” in that argument of mine might seem like some throwaway line (or throwaway concept) but it is there (they are there) for a purpose.

By setting up the argument as I did (in the link in the OP) I have eliminated this logical way of “wiggling out” of the conclusion that there is in fact a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

I believe my logic in that link is very tight.  But that’s why I’m here.  For stuff (alternative possibilities and ways of looking at the issue) like this.  Thank you.  I hope you will continue to consider my argument and any alternative issues around it!  Thank you.

Please let me know if this makes or does not make sense!



-



“As i see it, when assuming that there is a conservation of energy in that experiment, then at the moment of demagnetization, the potential energy of the moving magnet has to be transformed to some other form of energy. So when the kinetic energy of the moving magnet after the demagnetization will be less, the energy in some other form, like vacuum energy, will increase by the same amount.” - ayeaye


Yep.

“Potential energy” is a somewhat subtle and slippery concept.

When I roll a ball across the floor and it comes to a stop, 10 units of kinetic energy (when the ball leaves my hand) becomes 10 units of thermal energy (when the ball comes to a stop due to friction).

The 10 units of kinetic energy was a real thing.

And the 10 units of thermal energy is also a real thing.

They exist.

However, when dealing with “potential energy” (in mainstream Physics) things are different.

When I throw a ball up in the air and it comes to a stop, 10 units of kinetic energy (when the ball leaves my hand) becomes “an increase” in 10 units of potential energy (when the rising ball comes to a stop; and assuming no friction).

The 10 units of kinetic energy was a real thing.

But the increase in 10 units of potential energy is not a thing in the same way.

Potential energy, as they say, is the amount of potential energy in a given situation relative to an amount of potential energy designated as 0.  Huh?

When the ball thrown up in the air is just leaving my hand, it could be (it could be designated) that the amount of potential energy between the Earth and the ball at this point is -10 units of potential energy.  And so, then as the ball rises and comes to a stop the increase in potential energy is from – 10 units to 0 units.

So, yes, when you have two magnets some distance apart, it seems like you have a real thing (because there really is attraction between those two magnets and if you let them go they will really in fact move towards one another).  And, yes, so it seems like if you demagnetize one of them and thus lose this real attraction that they had (this real potential energy that they had), that if the Law of Conservation of Energy is true then there should be a corresponding and equal increase in another form of energy to offset this lose in potential energy between the two magnets.

Yep.  It seems like this should be the case.

But, I didn’t write the accepted and known Laws of Physics.
 
As I said, potential energy in mainstream Physics is a subtle and slippery concept.

So, when two magnets are some distance apart and one is demagnetized and so the potential energy between them is lost, it could be that 0 units of potential energy have become no units of potential energy.  And so, energy is conserved.

(This is not my argument but the argument of mainstream Physics.)

(BTW:  There is a way to bust this argument.  The link in the OP of this thread leads to “Post #21” in a Science Forums thread.  However, the OP in that same Science Forums thread (which I wrote), I believe, shows why this subtle and slippery use of the concept of potential energy cannot hold and breaks down.  But that post (the OP over there) is so long and complicate that I don’t think anyone really read it.  That’s why I kept playing with these concepts and got the argument down to a two page, very simple and very tight (logically wise), argument in the linked to “Post #21.)



-



I hope I have answered your questions.

I hope I have addressed your concerns.

I realize there are a lot of words here.  My argument linked to is very short, but every little detail (such as “when the two magnets in the two systems are the same distance apart”) has a lot of thought behind it.   I hope you find this interesting.  I love explaining what is behind each element in that argument.


If I’ve missed your points and didn’t address them, please let me know!



Thank you for continuing the conversation about my argument against the Law of Conservation of Energy!




Take care my online overunity friend,

- Zet






Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #49 on: April 27, 2015, 03:04:07 AM »
Ok, the unclear part. You say that it takes more energy to demagnetize a magnet when another magnet is near it. And the other magnet remains fully magnetized? This doesn't make much sense. But anyway, when this is so unclear, then change the experiment so that we demagnetize *both* magnets at the same time. Only in the second experiment later than in the first experiment. This demagnetization should take the same energy in both cases. And the obscurity is gone.

Or do the magnets get more field energy when they are closer together? This doesn't make much sense, and the experiments i have done with magnets don't confirm that. If i have two magnets of a certain strength and i put them together, then i get a magnet with the sum of the strengths of these two magnets. At least this is what i have seen.

Notice that i said that in case of demagnetizing the magnets, the *potential energy* of the magnets should be transformed to another form of energy. I didn't say that without a reason. Demagnetization removes the magnetic field energy, and this energy is very small btw, may be much less than the kinetic energy or potential energy. This energy transforms to heat likely.But anyway, this is a different thing, and has nothing to do with the problem.

What will be lost when the magnets are demagnetized, is the *potential energy* of the magnets, and only that. And that this potential energy is different in two experiments, this is what causes the problem. When the energy should be conserved, then the only way is that this potential energy will be transformed into some other form of energy. But that there is no way for a potential energy to be transformed into anything else than kinetic energy, this causes a paradox. And makes the conservation of energy in that case impossible in any known or unknown way.

Zetetic, Ok, a piece of iron is approaching a magnet, and the magnet shall be demagnetized at different times. Even simpler. I don't think that anyone says that an iron near a magnet makes the magnet anyhow stronger or weaker, and that demagnetizing it takes any different energy, no matter how far the piece of iron is from the magnet. I would make a drawing of the experiment below too :)

[S N]        <--        [Iron]
[___]    <--    [Iron]
...
[___][Iron]

[S N]        <--        [Iron]
[___]<--[Iron]
...
[___][Iron]

Cool thing you thought out. If there is any problem that the things there are happening too fast, and the magnet cannot be demagnetized fast enough, something, then the magnet and the iron can be placed in a heavy oil, or such, so that everything happens more slowly.

It may be that i overlooked something, but this is how i see it by now. I think that you see now that my analytical thinking is not bad at all.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 01:59:59 PM by ayeaye »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #49 on: April 27, 2015, 03:04:07 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Zetetic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #50 on: April 27, 2015, 09:15:22 PM »




“Ok, the unclear part. You say that it takes more energy to demagnetize a magnet when another magnet is near it. And the other magnet remains fully magnetized? This doesn't make much sense. But anyway, when this is so unclear, then change the experiment so that we demagnetize *both* magnets at the same time. Only in the second experiment later than in the first experiment. This demagnetization should take the same energy in both cases. And the obscurity is gone.” – ayeaye


I am not saying that it takes more energy to demagnetize a magnet when it is in another magnet’s magnetic field, ... but I am saying that it is possible.

Imagine a magnet and a magnet and a metal ball bearing.  The ball bearing is in the magnet’s magnetic field and so the particles within it are, because of this, magnetically aligned.

If a heat pack is broken near the ball bearing, then the increase in temperature will work to tend to disalign (randomly align) the particles in the ball bearing.  In other words, it will becomes demagnetized.

This takes energy.  And so there will be a decrease in thermal energy.

If the metal ball bearing was not in the magnet’s magnetic field then the particles within it would not be magnetically aligned.  And if a heat pack was broken near it, then there would be no tendency to magnetically align within the metal ball bearing for the randomization of thermal energy to overcome.  There would be no decrease in thermal energy.

The same thing when two magnets are in one another’s magnetic field.  Just as a metal ball bearing in a magnet’s magnetic field is externally magnetically aligned, when one magnet is in another magnet’s magnetic field its own alignment is externally reinforced.

And, so, it’s possible that when a magnet is in another magnet’s magnetic field and it is demagnetized that it takes more energy to do this.

It’s possible.  And that’s the point.

I am challenging one of the most fundamental laws of Physics.  If there is any wiggle room they will take it.

And, by the way, I tested this exact proposition some time ago.

I posted, essentially, the same thought experiment that you have proposed in Science Forums.  I guessed that this is where they’d (logically) go.  And they did.

(See: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87342-where-does-the-potential-energy-of-a-field-reside/?p=847467 and the response that follows)

Again, maybe energy is conserved or maybe not.  I don’t know.  It is an empirical question.  However, there is logical wiggle room.  And the whole point of my specific argument (linked to in the OP of this post) is to craft an argument that eliminates all of the wiggle room and logically corners the Law of Conservation of Energy and its flaws.

Maybe if you demagnetize both magnets at the same time energy is conserved or maybe not.  (Empirical question.)  However, when you demagnetize both magnets simultaneously they are (at that moment) in one another’s magnetic field (it takes time for the demagnetization of each to reach the other) and so, I believe, this still leaves that same logical “wiggle room.”  And if there is any wiggle room, mainstream Physicists will take it!  (Whether it is actually physically true or not.)

-

If the heat pack is closer to one magnet and further from the other magnet, then when the heat pack is broken the closer magnet will become demagnetized before the other.

The loss of mutual attraction will cross the distance between the two magnets far faster than the increased thermal energy will then dissipate across the distance between the two magnets (and then demagnetize the second magnet).  This is the time period where we get two different amounts of kinetic energies, depending on whether it is the moving or the fixed in place magnet that is demagnetized first.

(In the “casual” description of my thought experiment here, I left out that the second magnet will eventually become demagnetized because it is superfluous.  However, you noted its absence, as I’m sure others will too, and so in the actual argument (in the link in the OP in this thread) I take the time to anticipate all such things and include them (for the sake of clarity).  In that statement of the thought experiment, I note that both magnets will be demagnetized in the end.  And if you don’t believe me that the retreating magnetic field lines will cross the distance between the two magnets much much faster than the heat dissipates across that distance, then the thought experiment can simply be modified to also include a thermal barrier that slows down the dissipating heat but that does not affect magnetic field lines.)

-

“Or do the magnets get more field energy when they are closer together? This doesn't make much sense, and the experiments i have done with magnets don't confirm that. If i have two magnets of a certain strength and i put them together, then i get a magnet with the sum of the strengths of these two magnets. At least this is what i have seen.” – ayeaye

This has been my experience too.

The point is that when demagnetizing one of them the field lines from the other (like with a metal ball bearing) may have a strengthening effect on the internal magnetic alignment and so offer more resistance to demagnetization and so require more energy.

It’s possible.

Which means given them (mainstream Physicists) some wiggle room to avoid the conclusion “the Law of Conservation of Energy is logically flawed.”

If there is a way to craft the argument and eliminate this logical “out” then it makes sense to take it ... it makes sense to use the formulation of the argument (if there is one and there is) that eliminates this “out” (wiggle room).

Yes?  No?

-

“And makes the conservation of energy in that case impossible in any known or unknown way.” – ayeaye


Right.

If you go onto Science Forums and propose and argument that purports to show that the Law of Conservation of Energy is flawed based on “missing or an unaccounted for loss of potential energy” they will simply mock it.

The concept of “potential energy” in mainstream Physics is a bit surreal and they seem fine with that.

And so, again, if there is a way to craft an argument that disproves the Law of Conservation of Energy which does not rely on missing or unaccounted for potential energy (which there is) then this is the argument to use.  The argument linked to in the OP of this thread shows that the two systems end up with different amounts of kinetic energy.  That’s it.  It does not deal with what did or did not happen with the (surreal and ambiguous (in mainstream Physics)) potential energy between them.

(If it seem like I’m arguing against your suggestions, please don’t think so.  In these forums often times people are so wedded to their own ideas that if someone else makes a suggestion and improves on their idea they don’t want to hear it.  It’s just that the point you are raising ... the excellent points and excellent alternative ideas you are raising ... have, often, been the same important points that I worked through and found the “wiggle room” with them on my way to ultimately ending up with the specific argument that I did (linked to in the OP).  So, thank you for all your suggestions.  It’s my hope that you don’t mind it when I say why it think they lead to more logical “outs” than the specific formulation of the argument as it stands.  If you’re not offended, please keep them coming!)



-
 


“Zetetic, Ok, a piece of iron is approaching a magnet, and the magnet shall be demagnetized at different times. Even simpler. I don't think that anyone says that an iron near a magnet makes the magnet anyhow stronger or weaker, and that demagnetizing it takes any different energy, no matter how far the piece of iron is from the magnet.” – ayeaye

I can’t find a link for this.  But, I do believe that, yes, having the magnetic lines of flux pass through the piece of iron rather than just through the air will “make stronger” or “reinforce” the internal magnetic alignment of the magnet.

Again, I can’t find a link for this so it’s just speculation on my part.

The point is, however, it’s possible.  Again, this leads to wiggle room.  And if this (iron in the magnetic field) concept where to be presented to a mainstream Physicists as part of an argument about why “the Law of Conservation of Energy is false” they would take this logical “out” in an instant (whether it is actually true or not).

(Again, I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m arguing for the sake of arguing, or that I’m so wedded to “my” idea that I can’t see other ideas that improve it.)

In the formulation of the argument that I propose this logical “out” is eliminated with “... when the two magnets in the two systems are the same distance apart, the moving magnet in the one system is demagnetized and the fixed in place magnet in the other system is demagnetized ...”.   They can’t wiggle out by claiming “different distances and so different amounts of energy to demagnetize.”


-


“Cool thing you thought out.” - ayeaye

Thank you.  I’ve loved every (failed) pmm design that I have come up with.  And I love everyone else’s attempts.  (While I failed, there is still the hope that someone will find the right mechanical arrangement that I was never able to find!)

This argument against the Law of Conservation of Energy (not a pmm attempt) might also end up as “failed” (perhaps there is a flaw in my logic), but, as of right now, I can’t see one.  Right now, I think I’ve got it.  (But, I’m always open to being shown why I’m wrong.)


-


“If there is any problem that the things there are happening too fast, and the magnet cannot be demagnetized fast enough ...” – ayeaye

In a thought experiment, it is possible to stipulate that the magnet is demagnetized in an instant.

And, like you say, if you want to slow down the heat transfer from the first demagnetized magnet to the second magnet where it too will be demagnetized, then such real world things can be added to the thought experiment.

Thank you for considering my argument!  I appreciate all of the time and effort you have put into considering my idea!

(Again, I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m arguing for the sake of arguing, but rather that I am pointing out why the specific choices I made in crafting the argument where made and why , I believe , were necessary.)


-


“I think that you see now that my analytical thinking is not bad at all.” - ayeaye

I have never thought that your analytical abilities are any less than excellent.

What I do think is that you made a mistake in your use of terminology.  (I think you used “asymmetric” to mean one thing (“omnidirectional”) when talking about magnets and to mean a different thing (“unidirectional”) when talking about gravity.)

To make such a mistake is in no way a reflection of your (or mine (and I make these kinds of mistakes all the time)) analytical abilities.  It’s simply an oversight.

And, yes, the fact that in your last post you have raised as alternative possible arguments many of the alternative possible arguments that I worked though on my way to the actual argument (linked to the OP) that I ended up with, only adds to my esteem of your thinking.

You have no way of knowing all of what I worked through on the way to that that final form of this argument.  And the fact that you are proposing ideas that I also came up with along the way shows that you really have a grasp of the broader scope of the idea!



Again, thank you for continuing this conversation!

Let me know if you have any response to what I’ve just said!



Take care,

- Zet




Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #51 on: April 28, 2015, 02:22:58 AM »
Well, if a piece of iron is in the magnetic field of a magnet, then i think the magnetic field distribution changes, not its strength. Thus when there are no other magnets nearby, it should take the same energy to demagnetize the magnet, no matter what the distribution of its magnetic field is. I can so much say that i have never heard that the strength of a magnet can be changed just by adding iron to it.

But if they can say this, they can say whatever. They can say that something impossible happens, and you cannot prove that it doesn't, because you don't have a complete model of everything that happens there. Everyone has a burden of proof, so when they cannot prove their arguments, they should drop them. But some think that some don't have. That way you can never convince them, even if you are completely right. So maybe you are trying impossible, never do that, and never agree to do that.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #51 on: April 28, 2015, 02:22:58 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #52 on: April 28, 2015, 03:33:30 AM »
I have a few things to say here, this is an interesting proposal. However, I see some issues that must be resolved before a complete analysis of the systems can be conducted.

1) when examining a magnetic field from two magnetic sources, in terms of potential energy, wherein one or both magnetic sources is free to move towards the other - it must be considered that not all of the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. Some of the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, the remainder still exists, though it is not observable from the perspective between the two magnetic sources. This is the total potential energy of the field.
It is distinctly different from the perspective potential energy between the two sources.
       Example: one system the magnetic sources are free to move without restriction.
                      the other system, the moving magnetic sources are attached to a mass that is not great enough to significantly alter the acceleration of the moving magnetic source. In the second example the kinetic energy is greater than in the first, although they both started with the same potential energy. Therefore, there is assumed to be more energy transformation occurring.

2) In the provided example from the author: There is a mass of thermo-chemical mixture attached to the moving magnet in one system, which adds to the kinetic energy of that system. This is not accounted for in the example. (see above)

3) The author states:   "The demagnetized magnet is immediately cut off from the mutual attraction.  But the lack of mutual attraction takes some time to make its way across the distance to the still magnetized magnet.  It remains attracted to the other magnet for a while longer."
     This is not entirely accurate.
 It would be more clear to state that, when the one magnet is demagnetized, the mutual attraction aspect of the field interactions begins to collapse from both ends, and over time dissipates or approaches 0 near or at the center point between the two attracting fields. The influence on the shape of the field of the still magnetized magnet takes some time to realign, but there is not an actual "attraction" during this (very short) time.

The "total energy" of the system is the same in both cases. In the case where the chemical mixture is in motion, more of the initial potential energy has been converted into kinetic energy. But in both cases, in the end, all of the remaining potential energy of the magnetic fields has been converted. Once above the curie temperature, the magnetic domains within each magnet becomes scattered and any remaining magnetic potential energy will have been converted into kinetic energy within the material itself. Domains are no longer aligned in a parallel direction, and the atoms are in an excited state due to heat energy.
On the atomic level, there are many small magnets in rapid motion, in both attractive and replusive interactions.



 

Offline JEJEHO

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #53 on: April 28, 2015, 03:16:57 PM »
Hi,

Please correct me if I am wrong. In this topic we are comparing two systems, one has low out put and another has high output. Two identical levers with one has high loss due to friction means , one give high out put another give low out put.It didnt violate the Law of conservation of energy.

Likewise in your both system , due to one magnet is fixed its kinetic energy is resticted. so you cannot get the output equal in both systems

If out put is greater than Input then only law of conservation of energy is violated

Regards
Nixon



Regards
Nixon

Offline norman6538

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #54 on: April 28, 2015, 04:11:27 PM »
Here is another violation of the law of conservation of energy.
Where did the energy come from that lifts the pendulum past
10 oclock?

the pendulum that is dropped from 2 oclock and rises to 12 oclock and falls back down with no sticky spot.  see that here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FzK2XKQ-74
 
Norman

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #54 on: April 28, 2015, 04:11:27 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #55 on: April 28, 2015, 06:07:23 PM »
Converting potential energy to heat or to any other form of energy other than kinetic energy, this is a problem. We all have a near infinite potential energy, because we can fall into a black hole somewhere. But our interaction with that black hole is almost nonexistent, and we cannot heat our house with it.

Norman, talk it there http://www.overunity.com/15729/overunity-due-to-asymmetry-of-the-magnetic-field/#.VT-43zr52rM if you think that this is also caused by asymmetry of the magnetic field. We only talked about it here because Zetetic is also interested in magnet motors.

About conservation of energy, i don't know why i don't have any feelings about it. It may or may not be, neither of it disturbs me, but it should make me burn, this looks like wrong.

Offline Zetetic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #56 on: April 29, 2015, 09:52:08 PM »

ayeaye,



“Everyone has a burden of proof ...” -ayeaye


This is an interesting point.  And I agree with you in general.  However (... I don’t know what the right word is ...) in “practicality” we have the burden of proof and not them.

If you or I or someone else in this forum claims to have successfully built a perpetual motion machine (or claims to , as I have , come up with a simple two page argument that disproves (to a logical certainty!) a fundamental Law of Physics) I think it is us who has the burden of proof ... or , at least , the greater burden of proof.

When I walk outside and look around the world is obviously flat.  I can see that I’m not standing on a ball.  And at night when I look up into the sky obviously there is a dome over me with little lights affixed to it.  I can see it.  It’s obvious.  And I, and the ground below me, are not in motion.  I can feel it.  It is the Sun that moves across the sky and the moon too.  This is all very obvious.

And so, when fellas like Galileo and Copernicus came along ... you and I can agree that the flat earthers had just as much of a burden of proof as these guys ... but in “practicality” these two had the greater burden of proof.

Everyone back then “knew” the Earth was flat.

And everyone today “knows” that a perpetual motion machine cannot be built and that no one can disprove a fundamental Law of Physics in a simple two page Word for Windows argument using only basic college freshman level Physics concepts.

So ... I agree with you.  I think everyone has, or should have, an equal burden to prove their side ... whether they are on the side of “accepted and known” Physics or whether they are challenging it.

But in practicality, I believe, it is us who carries the greater burden.



 “... i think the magnetic field distribution changes, not its strength.” – ayeaye

I think you are probably right.

I can’t find a link on this that addresses this issue and points to an answer one way or the other.

My point is if there are two ways to fashion an argument, and if both are equally logically sound, but one leads to potentially “unfounded” counterclaims by the other party while the other argument avoids this, then (I believe) it is better to go with the latter argument.

In my everyday life I deal with people who say crazy incorrect stuff all the time.  And if I want to convince them that they are wrong I have to find a way to make my case that counters or avoids their crazy incorrect counterarguments.  Just because I think (and just because I’m right) that what they are saying is wrong doesn’t’ mean that I can convince them they are wrong.



“So maybe you are trying impossible ...” – ayeaye

I hope not.

Maybe it is impossible to show mainstream Physicists that the “Law” of Conservation of Energy is flawed and therefore people working on perpetual motion machines are not just fools who are wasting their time trying to wish water into wine.

I’m going to try (... I may ultimately fail, I have failed a lot in my many years here on this planet ...) but I’m going to keep trying.

 
-


smOky2,


“There is a mass of thermo-chemical mixture attached to the moving magnet in one system, which adds to the kinetic energy of that system. This is not accounted for in the example. (see above)” - smOky2


Right.

In my “casual” description of my argument against the Law of Conservation of Energy I may not have made it clear that the chemical heat packs are at rest.  When the “moving magnet” is demagnetized this is done so when is it near and moving past the chemical heat pack.

If the chemical heat packs where to be moving with the magnet, as you have noted, this would add to the mass.

Here is the link (the same link as in the OP) to the carefully worded description of this argument:  http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87489-a-magnet-is-demagnetized/page-2



“ It would be more clear to state that, when the one magnet is demagnetized, the mutual attraction aspect of the field interactions begins to collapse from both ends, and over time dissipates or approaches 0 near or at the center point between the two attracting fields. The influence on the shape of the field of the still magnetized magnet takes some time to realign, but there is not an actual "attraction" during this (very short) time.”  - smOky2

I don’t agree with you.

The changes in a magnetic field take time to cross that field.

“... if a giant, huge, powerful magnet appeared one light year away out of nowhere, then it would take exactly one year for magnets on Earth to feel its pull (however small it may be). That is, it would take one year for the "magnetic force" to reach the Earth.”

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5839/does-magnetic-propagation-follow-the-speed-of-light

“... and is defined to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s in vacuum (same as the speed of light).”

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae445.cfm

“... light is a propagation of electric and magnetic fields. So, if magnetic fields propagated faster than the speed of light, then light would also move faster than the speed of light. That is to say, they don't.”

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=62899



When the one magnet is demagnetized and so the magnetic field goes from one where the two magnets are mutually attracted to one where they are not, this change in the field takes time to make its way across the field and to still magnetized magnet.

This means the still magnetized magnet remains attracted to the now demagnetized magnet for a while longer.  If the loss of mutual attraction where to make its way across the field to the still magnetized magnet instantly, then this would mean that this change would occur faster than the speed of light.  If you are right (and, again, I don’t agree with you) then you have just found a violation of the Special Theory of Relativity and you have disproved this “Law” of Physics.


-


Nixon,


“... one has high loss due to friction ...” - Nixon


You can assume no friction in my thought experiment.  (Whether there is or is not friction, it doesn’t really change the argument.)



-



Norman,

“Where did the energy come from that lifts the pendulum past 10 oclock?” – Norman

You can make a pendulum with gravity and you can make a pendulum with magnets (as you did).

If you make a pendulum with one moveable magnet and with one fixed in place magnet, and if there is no friction, then the moving magnet will end up at the same “height” (the same distance from the fixed magnet) on the other side as it started (two o’clock to ten o’clock).  (See the left side of the drawing below.)

However, if you also have additional attractive magnets on the other side and none on the side where it starts (see the right side of the drawing below) then the moving magnet will reach a greater “height” (two o’clock to twelve o’clock) on the other side.  And there is no violation (sadly) of the Law of Conservation of Energy.  It’s simply that you went from a place with a small amount of magnetic attraction (two o’clock) to a place with more magnetic attraction (twelve o’clock).

Yes?  No?

Have I understood your proposal correctly?



-



ayeaye,

“We all have a near infinite potential energy, because we can fall into a black hole somewhere.” - ayeaye


I agree with what you are saying.

But this is not how mainstream Physics deals with the concept of “potential energy.”

Potential energy, for them, is a matter of designation.  And they typically designate 0 potential energy to be the greatest amount of potential energy possible and so everything else (every lesser amount of potential energy) is a negative quantity.

And so, what a mainstream Physicists would likely say to this comment of yours is that “no there is not an infinite amount of potential energy between you and the black hole but rather 0 amount of potential energy between you and it and as you get closer, and so the amount of potential energy between you and the black hole decreases, the amount of potential energy then becomes – 10 units of potential energy, and then – 100 units of potential energy, and then – 1000 units ... and so on and so on.”

Again, this is not my argument.  It is theirs.

And so, if I want to prove that the Law of Conservation of Energy is flawed and therefore wrong (... which I do ...) then I need to craft an argument that stays away from this stuff (... which I have).


“About conservation of energy, i don't know why i don't have any feelings about it. It may or may not be, neither of it disturbs me, but it should make me burn, this looks like wrong.” - ayeaye


If the Law of Conservation of Energy is true (if the total amount of energy in the Universe is always constant) then every attempt in this forum to build a perpetual motion machine (a device where less energy is put into it and more energy comes out of it) is a total waste of time (including your Field lines chain motor 4/4) and nothing more than regular old non-godlike humans, such as ourselves, trying to wish water into wine.


-


Thank you all (ayeaye, smOky2, Nixon, Norman) for continuing this conversation!




Take care!

- Zet






(PS:  Oops.  I edited this because  I made a mistake and attributed a smOky2 quote to ayeaye.  Oops.  Sorry.)


Offline norman6538

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #57 on: April 30, 2015, 01:21:34 AM »


Norman,

“Where did the energy come from that lifts the pendulum past 10 oclock?” – Norman

You can make a pendulum with gravity and you can make a pendulum with magnets (as you did).

If you make a pendulum with one moveable magnet and with one fixed in place magnet, and if there is no friction, then the moving magnet will end up at the same “height” (the same distance from the fixed magnet) on the other side as it started (two o’clock to ten o’clock).  (See the left side of the drawing below.)

However, if you also have additional attractive magnets on the other side and none on the side where it starts (see the right side of the drawing below) then the moving magnet will reach a greater “height” (two o’clock to twelve o’clock) on the other side.  And there is no violation (sadly) of the Law of Conservation of Energy.  It’s simply that you went from a place with a small amount of magnetic attraction (two o’clock) to a place with more magnetic attraction (twelve o’clock).

Yes?  No?

Have I understood your proposal correctly?



No, a normal pendulum never goes past its dropped point.  But this one does. so given
the law of conservation of energy where did the energy come from to make it go
2 extra hours past the dropped point? very simple question.
It demonstrates to me that there is something beyond the law of conservaton of energy.


Norman

Offline Zetetic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #58 on: April 30, 2015, 02:25:24 AM »

Norman,



Yes.  I did not address your specific question:  Where does the energy come from to move the pendulum past its “drop point”?



The answer is that there is “potential energy” between the moveable magnet and the magnet at six o’clock and there is also “potential energy” between the moveable magnet and every other magnet in your system.

When the magnet moves from its starting position, two o’clock, to the magnet at six o’clock, the potential energy between the two magnets at the start decreases and its velocity (kinetic energy) increases.  The loss of potential energy is equal to the increase in kinetic energy plus the loss to thermal energy (due to friction).

And then the moveable magnet moves onto the other magnets.  As the moveable magnet moves onto the other magnets and away from the magnet at six o’clock the attraction between the moveable magnet and the six o’clock magnet will tend to slow it down.  And if these were the only two magnets in the system then it would be slowed down and brought to a stop short of ten o’clock.  (It would reach ten o’clock if there was no friction, but since this is a real world model with friction it would stop short.)

However, these are not the only two magnets in your system (if I’ve understood your video correctly).  After the moveable magnet passes the magnet at six o’clock and so is slowed down by moving away from it, the moveable magnet is also moving towards other magnets.  As it move towards these other magnets the potential energy it has with these other magnets is transformed into kinetic energy (and thermal energy due to friction).

And so, while the attraction with the magnet at six o’clock will slow it down as it “rises” on the other side, the attraction with the other magnets will speed it up.  In other words, overall, it will not slow down as much.

And so, since it is deceleration more slowly on the second side than it accelerated on the first side it will reach a point “higher” than where it started (twelve o’clock).

The answer to “where does the energy come from to pass ten o’clock?” is it comes from the potential energy between the moveable magnet and the other magnets on the second side.  This potential energy is converted to kinetic energy and the moveable magnet thus passes ten o’clock.




Think of it this way.  Say you have a magnet taped to the underside of your desk, and on your desk you have a magnet glued to a plastic toy car.  If you set the car and magnet some distance from the taped magnet and then let the car go it will move towards the taped magnet and then past it.  And, if there was no friction it will move the same distance past the taped magnet as from where it started.  Here we have potential energy (at the start) being turned into kinetic energy (which reaches its peak when the two magnets are closest together) and then kinetic energy turned back into potential energy (as the car come to a stop on the other side).  Now, say we did this again, but this time we also tape a second magnet under the desk and on the far side of the first magnet from where the toy car and magnet start.  The toy car and magnet will again move past the first magnet, but his time it will move a greater distance than from where it started.  It will do this because there is potential energy between the magnet on the toy car and both of the magnets taped under the table.  (And if the first magnet taped under the table is stronger than the second magnet taped under the table, then after the toy car moves the greater distance on the far side than from where it started, it will then return to the point closest to the first taped magnet, as it appears is happening with your pendulum in you video.)

The energy to reach twelve o’clock comes from potential energy.  And, at all times, energy is conserved.



Yes?  No?

Am I still not getting your point?

Let me know!




Cheers!

- Zet




Offline norman6538

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #59 on: April 30, 2015, 02:58:25 AM »
Zet - you are the only one who has even been curious enough to try an answer. So
congradulations but a few things. Each magnet is the same strength. The positions
are very critical or it will not perform well. The pendulum is not vertical but slanted up about 20 degrees. That matches the gravity force with the magnetic force.
there are magnets on the pendulum that are 90 degrees to the flat magnets from six oclock to midnight.
Then the next big question is why does the magnet go faster clockwise and slower when dropping back down counterclockwise? I think its about the direction of spin in the magnetic field that sorta makes the Lenz counter to motion force when dropping counterclockwise.

Truely the excess energy comes from the magnets. Of all the magnets I have worked
with the attracting force is always less than the holding back force when the magnet
passes center or else the pendulum would speed up as it goes by center.

The only potential energy I see is in the magnets attraction force.
Potential energy is introduced when the pendulum is lifted up to 2 oclock
and that is all used up before it reaches 10 oclock....

One of the unique parts of this setup is several magnets from 6 oclock to midnight.
A little bit of spin added energy from each one and you get 2 extra hours of travel.

Zet - you are very much awake while thousands are still sleeping.

Norman

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #59 on: April 30, 2015, 02:58:25 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: