Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) 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:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. 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.

Many thanks.

New Book

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

• Total Posts: 897324
• Total Topics: 15812
• Online Today: 44
• Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
• Users: 2
• Guests: 11
• Total: 13

Author Topic: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy  (Read 41593 times)

sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3368
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #60 on: April 30, 2015, 03:27:28 AM »

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

The pendulum travels 2 hours past its drop point, then drops from there to where?? slightly below the point it was dropped from?
If this were a true violation, the pendulum would swing higher and higher and eventually make a complete circle.

The magnetism alters the potential of gravity during that part of the swing. i.e. the force of gravity is not acting as much to pull the pendulum back down. There is also a magnetic potential which is behaving in a similar manner.
Thus the pendulum does not actually "gain" any energy.

NOW: if you were to lock the pendulum at this new height, and move the magnets to the other side before releasing it again......hmm

Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #60 on: April 30, 2015, 03:27:28 AM »

sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3368
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #61 on: April 30, 2015, 04:28:18 AM »
smOky2,

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.
It takes some time to heat the magnet, as well as some time for the full disassociation of the magnetic domains within the material.

Quote

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.”

“... 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.”

a magnetic field propagates instantaneously. It is the effects of this field which propagate at the speed of light. i.e. our ability to physically detect the change in flux occur.
If we had a magnetic field, lets say 2 light years across. And we demagnetized or turned off the EMF coil, etc.
The field would begin to collapse at a point 1 light year from the source in every direction. From the outer extremities towards the center of magnetism.

The magnetic field of a photon is spherical, and considerably larger than the photon itself.
Consider a photon at the moment it leaves an electron. The field is already ahead of it. The field arrives before the photon impacts its' target. If the field did not propagate faster than c, it would not be spherical, and it would never be ahead in the path of travel.
Rather, the field would train behind the photon. Which, simply is not the case.

There are ways this has been proven. My favorite example is in Ed Leedskalnins book : Magnetic Currents
Where in, he sets up a demonstration to send electricity through the air.
This was proven to propagate the magnetic field of an electrical signal, faster than the signal itself. Thus enabling electrons to ride on their own magnetic wave, the same way a photon does.

ayeaye

• Hero Member
• Posts: 868
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #62 on: April 30, 2015, 09:45:47 AM »
Norman, how does your device really work? You should draw a diagram, for there to be anything to talk about.

Is it just a chain, where every next magnet is further from the center (if it works with attraction, or closer to the center when it works with repulsion)? Such chains are known, and they work because of potential energy as Zetetic said, no overunity.

My field lines chain is different, in that it works based on the asymmetry of the magnetic field, as i have explained. And the experiments show that as well, the additional energy gained there cannot be because of the potential energy, because no further magnets in the chain provide any additional energy potential. All magnets in the chain are the same strength, the same distance away from the center of the disc. The stator magnet every time goes through the magnetic field of every rotor magnet N S, and the N S are equal. The magnetic field is symmetric in that sense, it is asymmetric at every pole.

The only potential energy is the repulsion of the first pole of the first magnet. In the end the stator magnet does not remain locked by any magnet in the chain, but it stops at the position where it is not attracted or repulsed by any magnet (none is greater than friction). Different from the attraction chains based on potential energy, which in the end remain locked. Then it only needs to be given a potential energy of repulsion of the first magnet, to go through the chain again. And it evidently gets more energy by that, than that potential energy.

I have seen a very complex mechanical and magnetic device which was shown to rotate continuously. This may not be a hoax, it might be possible when using the asymmetry of the magnetic field properly, but such device would not be simple because of going through the magnetic field by a proper trajectory. And i think other overunity magnetic devices likely work because of asymmetry of the magnetic field as well, in a way or another.

I say my assumption is this. Given a chain of magnets, each of which is towards the stator magnet with the opposite pole (attracting), and every next magnet is closer to the edge of the disc. The total energy given by such chain is equal to the energy given by the attraction of the last magnet (closest to the stator magnet). Because the energy which any of these magnets give by their positive attraction, they take away by their negative attraction. Because the magnetic field of their poles is completely symmetric.

Now if anyone could show by experiment that the energy which such chain gives is greater than the energy given by the attraction of the last magnet, then this would mean overunity. Unfortunately though the experimenters never measure the energies properly, so this question cannot be answered. When working with repulsion, it's the same, just opposite. If anyone would show experimentally that such "potential energy chain" actually provides more energy than is necessary from releasing it from the lock, then that would be great of course. But so far it should be assumed that it does not.

And when it does, then i see no theoretical reason why that happens, because the fields of the magnets are used in a symmetric way. Then one should also provide a theoretical explanation. Norman mentioned "spin", is that some additional asymmetry of the magnetic field? I'm not aware of that, and it only makes sense to explain it theoretically when any experiment shows that there is any overunity because of that. And knowingly there are no such experiments so far, unless Norman shows that his experiment indeed provides any overunity.

To say all that briefly, i don't think that going through symmetric magnetic fields of no matter how many magnets with no matter what strength, can provide any additional energy. And there is knowingly no experiment which shows that this happens. Unless someone can show otherwise, and show that there is a "spin" or another additional asymmetry of the magnetic field, which makes that possible.

There should be a proper theoretical framework, for all that work to be any research, and anyhow useful. The theoretical base which i propose for permanent magnet devices, is asymmetry of the magnetic field.

Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #62 on: April 30, 2015, 09:45:47 AM »

sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3368
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #63 on: April 30, 2015, 11:31:38 AM »
@AyeAye,

There are a few ways this can be set up, but they will all behave in a similar manner. (few exceptions noted)

Basically, the magnetic assist is a linear magnetic gate. the moving magnet enters the field and is pushed/pulled through the array.

if there is a repulsion boundary, momentum carries the moving magnet through the barrier into the gate.

if it is strictly attraction, momentum carries the moving magnet out past the attractive barrier at the end of the gate.

Gravity is countered both by momentum and magnetism in the upwards direction.

Magnetism is countered by momentum and gravity back down through the gate.

in a perfectly symmetrical gate (which is difficult to build, by the way) the gate will actually assist in both directions,
giving acceleration on the way back down as well.

in either case, the effects on the gravitational force are symmetrical in both directions. what you gain on the way up is what you get back out on the way down.
Thus leaving you with exactly what you started with.

The gain in height on one side is only "apparent".
It is possible to place gates on both sides of the pendulum, assuming the magnet doesn't 'hang' at the starting point.
and the pendulum can swing higher on both ends, thus appearing to oscillate with a greater swing distance than a regular pendulum. Understand that gravity is NOT E=mgh during this part of the swing.
The proper analysis will be  E = m(g-T)h Where T is the force imparted by the magnetism. This is not exactly precise, as gravity has a time constraint, where-as the magnetic force does not, so in actuality its a more complex equation.

Before the pendulum reaches position 3, where it would normally stop, it is under the influence of the magnetic gate array.
the magnets "assist" against gravity, lifting it to position 4.
whether it is set up in repulsion, or attraction, doesn't make a great deal of difference in this scenario. The end-result will be about the same.

ayeaye

• Hero Member
• Posts: 868
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #64 on: April 30, 2015, 01:42:30 PM »
Oh i see, then in Norman's experiment it's just a "magnetic gate array", as sm0ky2 called it, likely an attraction array, because it has no kinetic energy in the position 3. And in the position 4 it will then be locked. Just as i thought, but i called such magnet chain before a "potential energy chain". As i said, such magnetic gate array, no matter whether attractive or repulsive, should not provide any overunity, because the magnetic fields of the poles of the magnets there are symmetric.

Unless someone shows experimentally for example that the energy gained in the attraction chain (attraction gate) is anyhow greater than the energy provided by the attraction of the last magnet in the chain. And that there is some "spin" or whatever in the magnetic field, which makes that possible. Which no one knowingly has done yet.

As i have said, my field lines chain is completely different from the magnetic gate array. There the stator (rotor) magnet is towards the chain magnets by one pole, the same as in the magnetic gate array. But the magnets in the chain don't face the stator (rotor) magnet by pole, the chain is instead as follows, and all magnets are at the same distance from the edge (of the disc):

| N | --->
===
[N S]   [N S]   [N S]   [N S]   [N S]   [N S]   [N S]   [N S]

I think potential energy is not real energy. It is a potential to get energy in some field. Yes the field does work. If we have a large magnet, and we let an iron ball to fall on it, then we get energy, first as a kinetic energy, which is then transformed into heat. And if we have a large number of such iron balls, then we can get a lot of energy. But when we want to get any of the balls back from there, then we have to use as much energy as we got, when the ball fell to the magnet.

So one may call it overunity, less energy in than we get out, indeed. But in overunity we have to consider the potential energy, otherwise overunity just doesn't make sense. Because the only reason we need overunity, is for continuous work. Otherwise one can do an experiment, let an object to drop from one's hand, and say overunity. No need for other experiments then, overunity is proven. This is the trick used in some overunity experiments, they say overunity, but they define overunity wrongly, so there really is no overunity.

So the overunity is defined like that, considering the potential energy. Because of its purpose, to repeatedly get energy. We don't need a continuous work in the experiments though, and its better when the device doesn't work continuously. Because it is likely impossible to measure the energies then. But we have to show by measurements, that there is overunity the way the overunity is defined.

No one is interested in any benefit of getting energy though, the only purpose of overunity experiments is theory. Using anything practically is primitive, the higher benefit is the theoretical thinking, and the creativity involved in that. I explain. We put all our efforts to do the theoretical work. We get no money for that, and we let others to take from us money. So we are in agony and we die in agony. And we get joy out of that agony.

That iron ball, we need the same energy to get it out from the magnet, than we got when it fell to the magnet, because the field is symmetric. It is not because of the mystery of potential energy. In the symmetric field, when moving something to somewhere, moving something back from there, takes the same amount of energy as we got when moving the thing to there. No matter by what trajectory we moved the thing, in one direction or the other. The same is not always true in an asymmetric field.

So in a symmetric field, the field can do work, every field can do work. But symmetric field cannot do continuous work. Thus for overunity we need an asymmetric field, so that the energy we get is greater than the initial potential energy in the field.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2015, 10:29:00 PM by ayeaye »

Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #64 on: April 30, 2015, 01:42:30 PM »

norman6538

• Hero Member
• Posts: 536
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #65 on: May 01, 2015, 01:44:51 AM »
Norman, how does your device really work? You should draw a diagram, for there to be anything to talk about.

Is it just a chain, where every next magnet is further from the center (if it works with attraction, or closer to the center when it works with repulsion)? Such chains are known, and they work because of potential energy as Zetetic said, no overunity.

ayeaye
If I really knew how it worked I'd draw it. The magnets are pretty symetrical not
closer closer.  As I recall if you position the magnet near any magnet it will just
get stuck there.  So you can see its a mystery to me....

Norman

sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3368
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #66 on: May 01, 2015, 01:53:37 AM »
its actually a lot harder than one may think to make the field of such arrays perfectly symmetrical.
you can measure down to the micrometer, but the field responds to the nanometer. perfect machining comes real close, but the average build at home project, not so much....

asymmetry does not matter in most situations. The asymmetrical field is still inversely proportional. +/-, it all balances out in the end.

Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #66 on: May 01, 2015, 01:53:37 AM »

ayeaye

• Hero Member
• Posts: 868
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #67 on: May 01, 2015, 07:08:58 PM »
The asymmetrical field is still inversely proportional. +/-, it all balances out in the end.
No. The poles are inverse, yes, but they are inverse in a way that when the asymmetry at one pole gives additional energy, the asymmetry at the other pole gives additional energy too. Because of symmetry between the poles, they don't compensate each other in that respect, but both add to the effect. It is a symmetry, the same which is true for repulsion at one pole, is true for the attraction at the other pole. Like less repulsion when entering and more repulsion when exiting at one pole, usually means more attraction when entering, and less attraction when exiting, at the other pole, in case of asymmetry such as in my field lines chain. And this is exactly because of symmetry between poles.

This asymmetry of poles is caused by more field lines between the poles, less between the magnets, and these between the magnets somewhat directed away. Not a great asymmetry, but there is some asymmetry, and by experiments this seems to be enough to provide some overunity, not much overunity. Because of that arrangement of magnets, the field is symmetric between the poles, and this adds to the effect.

But this is yes a very subtle thing, the magnets have to be placed rightly, and be of right strength, for field to be asymmetric. Most importantly the magnets have to be weak, so that there is not too much interaction between them. The stator magnet at that can be stronger. It's so in my experiment, but there may be other arrangements.

When going only through one pole, there may even be a piece of iron instead of magnet. This complex continuously rotating magnet device that i saw, had iron balls going through the magnetic field of a magnet, by some weird trajectory. I think this was using the asymmetry of the magnetic field as well. The device rotated continuously, but could do only that, it was not powerful enough to extract any energy from that.

Norman,

Yes, the rotor magnet can get stuck at every magnet of the attraction gate array. It will not if it goes over them with speed, but finally it will be stuck at the last magnet of the array.

But i don't know what your device is. It looks like attraction gate array, but then it does not stick to the end position, which is weird. It may be overunity, but without knowing what it is, this cannot be decided either. Because it can be whatever, like some spring inside the rotor can do the thing, even when there are magnets. A complete data about a thing like this has to be available, so that it can be replicated. Otherwise even if it is something great, it is worthless as an experiment.

Array, i often call it chain. But i also mean something deeper by chain, an array of magnets, and how their poles are connected with field lines. This, magnetic gate array, doesn't form though what i call the "field lines chain". Because the magnets in that array repulse each other, and field lines don't form a chain.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2015, 02:39:12 AM by ayeaye »

ayeaye

• Hero Member
• Posts: 868
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #68 on: May 02, 2015, 11:21:29 AM »
Norman,

Your experiment nevertheless made me to think. Maybe overunity should be defined without potential energy after all. Because potential energy, by everything it implies, is so confusing concept. Potential energy is not the same as potential to get energy, because the latter implies less. But potential energy implies things which have no meaning in every asymmetric field, at least not in every imaginable asymmetric field. So then, overunity could be defined as less energy in, more energy out, so that it can be repeated. In case of dropping iron balls to magnet this is not true, because iron balls are a limited resource, and we eventually run out of it.

I mean i thought, if it's really an attractive magnetic gate array. Which is made to be minimal, so that it works only when the rotor has some speed. And then it doesn't stick in the end because the gravity pulls it back. Does it really work? I have not tried it. If it really is that and it does work, then it's overunity, because there is a process with more energy out than energy in, and this process can be repeated. And again yes, not enough for continuous rotating, or continuous swinging there i guess. But this is not a necessary criterion for overunity.

So when this device really works like that, then it works by a slightly different principle than my experiment. I looked at only one field, and when there is only one field, then for overunity it has to be irregular. That is asymmetric, shielded, or possible to change or switch off by small energy. The last two as much as i know are not true for magnets, so only asymmetry remains. Though i'm not entirely sure. So my device works because of asymmetry of the magnetic field.

But your device, if it is what i guessed it may be, works differently. Because there are two fields, magnetic field and gravity, working at the same time. Both i assume are symmetric. The gravity field and all the magnetic fields there are symmetric, that is. So two different symmetric fields may also provide overunity. Because they may provide the irregularity which a single symmetric field cannot provide. So the potential energy concept may be entirely true only in a single symmetric field. This is interesting, if true.

Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #68 on: May 02, 2015, 11:21:29 AM »

sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3368
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #69 on: May 02, 2015, 12:29:59 PM »
No. The poles are inverse, yes, but they are inverse in a way that when the asymmetry at one pole gives additional energy, the asymmetry at the other pole gives additional energy too. Because of symmetry between the poles, they don't compensate each other in that respect, but both add to the effect. It is a symmetry, the same which is true for repulsion at one pole, is true for the attraction at the other pole. Like less repulsion when entering and more repulsion when exiting at one pole, usually means more attraction when entering, and less attraction when exiting, at the other pole, in case of asymmetry such as in my field lines chain. And this is exactly because of symmetry between poles.

This asymmetry of poles is caused by more field lines between the poles, less between the magnets, and these between the magnets somewhat directed away. Not a great asymmetry, but there is some asymmetry, and by experiments this seems to be enough to provide some overunity, not much overunity. Because of that arrangement of magnets, the field is symmetric between the poles, and this adds to the effect.

But this is yes a very subtle thing, the magnets have to be placed rightly, and be of right strength, for field to be asymmetric. Most importantly the magnets have to be weak, so that there is not too much interaction between them. The stator magnet at that can be stronger. It's so in my experiment, but there may be other arrangements.

When going only through one pole, there may even be a piece of iron instead of magnet. This complex continuously rotating magnet device that i saw, had iron balls going through the magnetic field of a magnet, by some weird trajectory. I think this was using the asymmetry of the magnetic field as well. The device rotated continuously, but could do only that, it was not powerful enough to extract any energy from that.

There are always the same number of "lines", what goes in, must come out. Every N needs a S to travel around its' loop.
In an asymmetrical configuration, they are closer together on one end, more spread out on the other. essentially the strength (Gauss/Tesla) can be measured stronger at one pole vs the other. This is a matter of "lines" of flux per spatial volume.

Weaker magnets, such as ceramic-ferrite, are more pliable. They are easier to warp the fields into the shape you want. A strong magnet like neodymium holds its' shape more in resistance to manipulation. This is caused by a property of magnetism that causes a minimum distance between "lines" when the field is compressed. The stronger the magnet, the larger this minimum distance.
For instance, a rubber refrigerator magnet can be compressed entirely into the magnetic material. Leaving no apparent field on one side, and an extended field on the other. The "lines" are still there, they are just compressed to the surface of the magnet.

Angle of entry into the field is of great importance. Some magneticians will tell you that potential energy at a given point is the same, regardless of the path taken to get there. I disagree with this, as it only really applies to a symmetrical fields (and not always). In certain configurations, there can be a path of least resistance where-in a larger potential is observed via a different exit route.

[ I use the term lines in " ", because I'm not sure this is the best way to describe it. It's convenient as a way of visualizing the field, but I like to think of it more as a bunch of Nascar tracks, with millions of tiny pulses traveling around at some ridiculous  velocity.]

Potential Energy::  When you examine a system from the perspective of energy potentials, you must consider where this potential exists. If it exists outside the boundaries of your system, then input / output energy is not the same at the potential.
They cannot be compared in that manner for the purposes of OU or COP.
Often times, a subject is argued from the perspective of E=mgh or some other analysis of a potential, without consideration that the gravitational field exists well outside the boundaries of the system observed. Energy passing into the system is not taken into account, and therefore the system is assumed to be OU. When in all actuality, the energy can be derived from outside the system boundary. Magnetism exists in a similar manner, but without a time constraint. A magnetic field extends infinitely across the universe, with ever decreasing magnitude. So while your system might be the area around your workbench, the magnetic field encompasses everything outside of that as well. So, potential energy, while it is a good method of analyzing energy values, caution must be taken as to how it is used to define your system. It is not equivalent to the input and output energy.
Especially when you consider that potential energy of a larger field can be manipulated in a localized area within that field.
like a vertical wind tunnel suspending an object in air. or magnetic repulsion, buoyancy, etc..

Here's something to think about. If you fly an airplane up to 9000 feet above sea level, then travel horizontally to some other location, maintaining the same altitude, in terms of gravitational potential, the energy is the same? or is it?......
Let's say you travel from Vancouver to Miami. In Vancouver the energy potential is: E = m[g-(change in g)]h
in Miami, where gravity is closer to the average, E=mgh.
Is this overunity?  No, the energy comes from the gravitational field outside the system being analyzed. Earth density is greater in Miami, thus a greater potential energy at the same height.
This sort of thing can also happen with magnetism.

ayeaye

• Hero Member
• Posts: 868
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #70 on: May 02, 2015, 05:55:29 PM »
Norman,

Well, even considering the potential energy, in the magnetic gate array, when the field is symmetric, and the potential energy makes sense, your device still has overunity. When it really is what is on that diagram drawn by sm0ky2. Because in addition it moves back from the end position, to position 2, by gravity, the energy of that movement is not provided by any initial potential energy.

Zetetic,

I think the answer to your question is, in the irregular field (like that which can be switched off) potential energy has no meaning. Comes out of logic. One may analyze what happens in the magnetic field, if there is any way to do that. But, that magnetic field increases, when an iron ball approaches, the problem with that is that this may violate the conservation of energy. Because the potential energy of the iron ball is transformed into a kinetic energy exactly by the law of the conservation of energy. If there in addition is any transfer of energy to increase or decrease the magnetic field energy, then this as i see violates the conservation of energy. I mean, i don't exclude that some of the energy of the moving iron ball goes to the magnetic field, but i mean that he magnetic field increasing or decreasing by the amount of the kinetic energy of the iron ball, violates the conservation of energy. Or that the energy spent to remove a slightly greater magnetic field takes much more energy, this should be exactly equal to the field energy of the magnetic field. Each magnetic field has a field energy, but this energy is very small.

sm0ky2,

Yes a pole has the same number of field lines, but they are distributed differently. Say when outside is another attracting magnet, a part of the field lines at the outer side of the pole goes to the pole of that magnet, and less remain free. To the point when two magnets are against each other by opposite poles, we cannot detect any poles from outside at that point any more, two magnets have become one magnet. Then we cannot use the asymmetry of that pole any more, because the pole like disappeared, the outer poles of the joint magnet work instead. At least this is how i see it by now by my simple mind.

Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #70 on: May 02, 2015, 05:55:29 PM »

Zetetic

• Newbie
• Posts: 33
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #71 on: May 03, 2015, 01:19:53 AM »

smOkey2,

“It takes some time to heat the magnet, as well as some time for the full disassociation of the magnetic domains within the material.” – Reply #61

For the ease of analysis, assume (and this is acceptable to do in a thought experiment) the demagnetization is instantaneous.  (If you assume something else, a slower more real world process, it does not change the overall logic but rather just makes the thought experiment more cumbersome.)

-

“The field would begin to collapse at a point 1 light year from the source in every direction. From the outer extremities towards the center of magnetism.” – Reply #61

smOkey2 please respond to this question:

Are you saying that if we have an electromagnet and a permanent magnet 1 light year apart , ... and where the electromagnet has been turned on for a number of years and the permanent magnet and the electromagnet are attracted to one another ... and so the two magnets feel a pull towards one another, ... are you saying that if that electromagnet is then switched off that the permanent magnet will feel the loss of the pull from the (now switched off electromagnet) in less than one year (from the time when the electromagnet was switched off)?

---

Norman,

Okay, I understand now that the pendulum comes to rest at the six o’clock position because this is the point closest to the Earth below and not due to greater magnetic attraction.

However, the analysis basically remains the same.  When the pendulum is at two o’clock there is potential energy between it and the Earth below (due to gravitational attraction) and there is potential energy between it and the magnets on the far side (due to magnetic attraction).

I have spent many many years working with models like these (with the magnets orientated towards one another in all sorts of different ways) trying to get OU.  And I failed.  (That’s not to say that someone else can’t find that just right configuration that I was never able to find.)

My experiences have lead me to the same conclusions as stated by sm0key2:

“what you gain on the way up is what you get back out on the way down.” – Reply #63

“asymmetry does not matter in most situations. The asymmetrical field is still inversely proportional. +/-, it all balances out in the end.

But there is always hope!

---

ayeaye,

“I think the answer to your question is, in the irregular field (like that which can be switched off) potential energy has no meaning.” – Reply #70

“Maybe overunity should be defined without potential energy after all. Because potential energy, by everything it implies, is so confusing concept.” – Reply #68

I think “potential energy” should be avoided (if able) when making purely theoretical arguments as against the “known and accepted” Law of Physics (such as mine linked to in the OP) because it is such a slippery concept, but when it comes to building OU mechanical devices it should be fine.

When you’re building a device that is intended to move forever, and if that devices includes some form of energy becoming potential energy and then that potential energy becoming another form of energy and so on, what you’re dealing with is a real thing.  When two magnets are some distance apart from one another, there really is an attraction between them, and if let go this potential energy will really become kinetic energy.  Potential energy in this context is not simply a matter of designation.  And if anyone wants to designate it as 0 units of potential energy or -10 units of potential energy or a zillion units of positive potential energy ... it doesn’t matter.  In your OU device that real potential energy becomes real kinetic energy.

However, in the realm of a purely theoretical argument, if you were to say “when you demagnetize one magnet in a two magnet system there is a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy because the amount of potential energy between the two magnets due to their mutual attraction is now gone without a corresponding change in another form of energy to offset this” then that’s, I’ve found, where the dance of designation occurs and mainstream Physics gets slippery.

-

I think you and sm0key2 are in danger doing what you and I did and talking about the word “asymmetrical” with two different concepts in mind.  And, if so, I hope you two can avoid my mistake of then going on for long post after long post telling you that you were wrong, when all along I just didn’t understand how you were using that word in relation to magnetism and in relation of gravity.  My bad.

I want to understand your 4.4, and so I’ve made a drawing for you to critique.  Please examine it and let me know how this does and/or does not correspond to your ideas.

---

This has been a fascinating discussion!

Take care!

- Zet

ayeaye

• Hero Member
• Posts: 868
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #72 on: May 03, 2015, 03:26:33 AM »
Zetetic,

Yes correct. Sure there is some negative repulsion and attraction between the magnets, but this is less than the positive repulsion and attraction near the side of the magnet, due to asymmetry of the magnetic field at each pole. Maybe you should also draw the curvature of the disc, which may provide more asymmetry. I also talked about 3/4, which i think is a better example than 4/4, but i did not have enough weak magnets for a complete circle.

So there were better results when magnets were more far apart than in 4/4. The problem with 4/4 was that these magnets were too strong, and attracted to each other, so the only solution i found was to put some folded paper between them. I think using weaker magnets there should give better results, because all the problems there were caused by magnets too much interacting with each other. Including maybe that shifting of the poles.

I think it's better to define asymmetry so that, when we draw a plane through the center of the field, then the field is asymmetric when there is anywhere more field lines at one side of that plane, than at the other side. This includes asymmetry also when it is only due to uneven distribution of the field lines. In the magnetic field, this center of the field is the center of one pole, so it is the asymmetry of the field around one pole.

I didn't define it clearly enough before also, and this also could cause confusion, this part was my fault.

Zetetic

• Newbie
• Posts: 33
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #73 on: May 03, 2015, 04:24:26 AM »

ayeaye,

Okay ... let’s see if I can another step forward (without taking two steps back) in understanding your idea.

I’ve drawn another picture.  Please let me know if I’m on the right track, or not.

(Please note, in this drawing the moving magnet and fixed magnets are opposite from how they are in your actual models.  It was easier to draw it this way.  But, as we talked about before, it doesn’t which one(s) is in motion and which one(s) at rest, but just that their orientations towards one another is the same as in your models.)

(Let’s see if we can get this right first, before moving onto other drawings.)

Let me know!

Cheers!

- Zet

ayeaye

• Hero Member
• Posts: 868
Re: A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
« Reply #74 on: May 03, 2015, 05:26:50 AM »
Zetetic,

Yes right.

I tried to draw too, but i don't know how well i can draw these field lines.

This is a kind of subtle though. In that the more there is interaction with the other magnets, the weaker the poles come. Until all is one magnet, and poles are only at the ends of the chain.

Where do they sell these rubberized magnets you talked about, btw? I searched ebay, and all i found was magnet tape. It may be possible to make these magnets from that too. Magnet tape should have one pole on one side of the tape, and the other on the other side, so the edge should be N S, but not sure whether that works.

Very small neodymium cube magnets, like 1 mm, may be another option, but some say that neodymium magnets have somehow a very rigid magnetic field, so may not be good for the purpose. Yet another option may be to magnetize tiny ferrite cores or such.

Also it looks like, when the circle of magnets in 4/4 is full, something happens. Partly all the chain behaves like one magnet, and wants to have poles at the ends. But when the circle is full, the distribution of the field kind of changes, with new stronger poles emerging somewhere. And this is more difficult to control, It may sound crazy but, it may be good to omit one or two magnets in the circle, to make a "gap".

Then at the ends of the chain there will be stronger poles, but when the chain is made well, these would not be strong, and the strength of the magnetic field is more evenly distributed around the circle. So maybe it will get enough speed to jump over the gap, not sure though. 3/4 is a simpler experiment, just to show overunity. Trying a continuous rotation causes additional problems, and may not be possible to achieve because of that.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2015, 03:22:28 PM by ayeaye »