# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: activ25 on September 25, 2016, 05:14:10 AM

Title: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 25, 2016, 05:14:10 AM
Hi guys, I drawn the device and explain the sum of energy.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on November 06, 2016, 06:57:45 PM
I don't know how to calculate with maths so I used a program with 1000 bits of precision, just turn 1°, the function must be continuous.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on November 11, 2016, 11:14:55 PM
I can have a difference from that:

(http://i.imgur.com/Yz0rKLv.png)
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on November 26, 2016, 10:11:20 PM
An idea :

(http://imgur.com/6GWJVyt)
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: FatBird on November 29, 2016, 04:14:46 PM
Just what we need to Save The World & give us free juice, MORE MATH! LOL

.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 18, 2017, 09:47:34 AM
The idea
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 20, 2017, 09:13:43 AM
Hi guys, I drawn the device and explain the sum of energy.
You reduce the volume inside the triangle. This will increase the pressure.
I am very sure you must put energy in somehow.

Vidar
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: forest on September 20, 2017, 09:23:39 AM
I think you need something with quadrature rising like energy of capacitor  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 20, 2017, 10:49:45 AM
You reduce the volume inside the triangle. This will increase the pressure.
I am very sure you must put energy in somehow.

Vidar

It was an old idea and I found my error in that device. And no, the volume of the triangle can be kept constant. But anyway, I'm interesting about a new idea in the pdf file. I explained all details of the device.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 20, 2017, 10:50:15 AM
I think you need something with quadrature rising like energy of capacitor  ;D ;D ;D

I don't understand
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 20, 2017, 12:24:44 PM
It was an old idea and I found my error in that device. And no, the volume of the triangle can be kept constant. But anyway, I'm interesting about a new idea in the pdf file. I explained all details of the device.
I think the theory in the PDF will remain a theory. You need to manufacture trillions of blue spheres which has no mass (???), and just as many tiny tiny tiny springs made of nano tubes. These springs have mass, and will be a part of one product consisting of a sphere and a spring.

To be honest, I did not understood the concept wery well. Why can't you use larger spheres? If they have a given extent anyway, they could likely be made larger and manageable.

Vidar

Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 20, 2017, 04:21:39 PM
I think the theory in the PDF will remain a theory. You need to manufacture trillions of blue spheres which has no mass (???), and just as many tiny tiny tiny springs made of nano tubes. These springs have mass, and will be a part of one product consisting of a sphere and a spring.

To be honest, I did not understood the concept wery well. Why can't you use larger spheres? If they have a given extent anyway, they could likely be made larger and manageable.

Vidar

I use small spheres to have the right to apply the law of hydrostatic pressure . If a device even in theory breaks the conservation of energy in a closed device, we win ! If I take bigger spheres it is very complex to calculate, here with the law of hydrostatic pressure it is easy and logical.
After, we can find a better solution, with real materials. Even, I think I have good ideas with electromagnetic fields.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 20, 2017, 04:58:37 PM

What is less complex with spheres at 1nm in diameter compared to 1cm in diameter?
The calculations must be the same. Both are spheres.

Vidar

I use small spheres to have the right to apply the law of hydrostatic pressure . If a device even in theory breaks the conservation of energy in a closed device, we win ! If I take bigger spheres it is very complex to calculate, here with the law of hydrostatic pressure it is easy and logical.
After, we can find a better solution, with real materials. Even, I think I have good ideas with electromagnetic fields.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 20, 2017, 05:47:02 PM
What is less complex with spheres at 1nm in diameter compared to 1cm in diameter?
The calculations must be the same. Both are spheres.

Vidar

If the length of the device is 1 meter, no it is not the same. But  if the device is 1000000000 m OK it is the same calculation. I took small value to think with hydrostatic pressure law, if you take for example 100 spheres all people will say, Hey! you can't apply the law of hydrostatic pressure and you must calculate the force on each sphere all the time, it is very complex. I took a parallel with molecules of water but without mass and without friction. And it is for simplify the calculations, not because it couldn't work with mass and friction. No mass, means no delay to apply the pressure when the shape changes, with mass there delay and delay will be differential equations in the calculations.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: lancaIV on September 20, 2017, 05:57:04 PM
What is less complex with spheres at 1nm in diameter compared to 1cm in diameter?
The calculations must be the same. Both are spheres.

Vidar

Mathematical 1nm is the m/n part from a meter.
In living science and Physis you enter with that distance a
matter skin/spin dimension,
where quantum mechanics rules the nano-world.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=distance+quantum+mechanics&form=PRPTPT&pc=UE13&httpsmsn=1&refig=3b6f3d36196e46da8d29bde409076b84&ENDPT=0&pq=distance+quantum+mechanics&sc=0-0&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 20, 2017, 06:03:29 PM
Mathematical 1nm is the m/n part from a meter.
In living science and Physis you enter with that distance a
matter skin/spin dimension,
where quantum mechanics rules the nano-world.

It is a theoretical device. Forget one moment mass, friction, quantum problems, etc.
It is a mechanical device, so even with simplifications, in physics, the sum of energy must be constant.

Take the size of an atom of oxygen if you cannot think in theory.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: lancaIV on September 20, 2017, 06:12:45 PM
It is a theoretical device. Forget one moment mass, friction, quantum problems, etc.
It is a mechanical device, so even with simplifications, in physics, the sum of energy must be constant.

In physics,the sum of energy must be constant.

{    }             = constant before "BIG BANG"
{  0}             = constant  entropie
{<0/neg}      = constant  Gibbs Theorem
{>pos/0/neg}= constant  decay

theory includs practise/praxis
"in physics" translated to english/englisch/angelo-saxonic: " in formation from/of ...."

pardon for my answer delay but my unwished,automatic ,language corrector
thinks to know it better and translated the written words, uncommanded, wrong.
autonomous software :P :-\ >:(

Tand,Tand,erschaffen von Menschen mit geringem Verstand
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 21, 2017, 08:49:06 AM
In physics,the sum of energy must be constant.

{    }             = constant before "BIG BANG"
{  0}             = constant  entropie
{<0/neg}      = constant  Gibbs Theorem
{>pos/0/neg}= constant  decay

theory includs practise/praxis
"in physics" translated to english/englisch/angelo-saxonic: " in formation from/of ...."

pardon for my answer delay but my unwished,automatic ,language corrector
thinks to know it better and translated the written words, uncommanded, wrong.
autonomous software :P :-\ >:(

Tand,Tand,erschaffen von Menschen mit geringem Verstand
What I called "physics"' is the official physics, not the true physics.
The name of the forum is overunity, so focus on the device please.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: lancaIV on September 21, 2017, 10:00:06 AM
a.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
conditionized energy is conditional : constant

b. Pyramid  and metal shaping : why and how
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 21, 2017, 10:05:16 AM
a.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
conditionized energy is conditional : constant

b. Pyramid  and metal shaping : why and how

The device...
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: lancaIV on September 21, 2017, 10:19:22 AM
The ""virtual" device has as "virtual working medium" a gas :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_power

The physical,not technical :  https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klirrfaktor

Verknüpfung, Überschneidung: Schnittpunkt(quantitativ/qualitativ)
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 21, 2017, 10:41:17 AM
The device...read at least all my document.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: lancaIV on September 21, 2017, 10:47:09 AM
The device is virtual,only an arithmetical idea,..... is  https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Mathematik   related

Germany: 7th class maths( average 12-13 years pupils)
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 21, 2017, 10:52:15 AM
The device is virtual,only an arithmetical idea,..... is  https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Mathematik related

No, you missed something: the device is theoretical for simplify the calculations:

No mass: no differential equations
No friction: so difficult to compute with friction...

BUT, it is very important: it is possible to have a mass for all the parts. And friction too.

It is a theoretical simplification to simplify the calculations not because at final this device must be without mass and friction. If I'm right with this theoretical device, I'm right with a device with mass and friction.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: lancaIV on September 21, 2017, 10:57:51 AM
If you take away some digits/letters from a mathematical fixed formula,
how and what you will get a/-s result ?

SYNTAX(A) ERROR

be ever (nearest) the reality

spatial division method,
for Childs, Juniors and Seniors
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 21, 2017, 11:05:41 AM
If you take away some digits/letters form a mathematical fixed formula,
how and what you will get a/-s result ?

SYNTAX(A) ERROR

be ever (nearest) the reality

OK lancalV, I understood.

Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 21, 2017, 01:27:55 PM
If you use a calculator, and do the math with that one, the calculator will not provide an answer that is higher than the mathematical sum or product of numbers you put into the equation. This is a major problem when trying to calculate the output to be more than 100%.

I guess you must turn into something like virtual math that does not obey the mathematical rules. But then you must be the first to invent such a calculator.

Don't forget that what you want to find is a product of it all. To calculate energy, you must deal with multiplication from two general sizes. For example mass multiplied with displacement. Force multiplied with displacement.
Many hobby scientist focus on forces only, and get stunning results with their calculator. Then I tell them to multiply force with displacement, then the product allways ends up in zero.

Using math correctly, and account for total displacement, total forces, in every possible direction, is very important if you want the result to be correct. The result, if done correctly, allways ends up in zero.

Vidar
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 21, 2017, 02:20:45 PM
I use maths. The device without the white disk conserved the sum of energy, I calculated the integrals. Now,with the white disk, I count the energies: potential energies (at start and at final) from the springs, and work of the walls: force (pressure by surface) by angular rotation. I don't need a mass to have an energy, the basic formula is force by length. And if look at the final equations, I wrote energies not forces.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: lancaIV on September 21, 2017, 04:38:48 PM
free parameter or need of energy input calculation !?

spring ! natural season or industrial device ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

100%-99,66%= 0,0034% - error-preserve +/- ? %

wmbr
OCWL
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 21, 2017, 06:09:13 PM
free parameter or need of energy input calculation !?

spring ! natural season or industrial device ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

100%-99,66%= 0,0034% - error-preserve +/- ? %

wmbr
OCWL

And Noether's theorem is based on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_(field_theory)

And my device is not continuous, so the theorem of Noether cannot be applied here.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: forest on September 21, 2017, 06:17:05 PM
you need something proportional to something^2 or exponential rise
good example is energy in capacitor
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 21, 2017, 06:31:33 PM
you need something proportional to something^2 or exponential rise
good example is energy in capacitor

For simplify the calculations, I took the force from the spring constant (don't depend of the length of the spring, like gravity can do on a molecule of water). But it is possible to take any law of force, proportional, square or exponential, it is better but the calculations are more complex, and I would like to take an example easy to understand.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: lancaIV on September 21, 2017, 07:14:58 PM
And Noether's theorem is based on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_(field_theory)

And my device is not continuous, so the theorem of Noether cannot be applied here.
IT IS A GERAL THEOREM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%E2%80%93Lagrange_equation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_

Which kind of dynamics you exspect by such an impossible trial of
"increase"=+ of potential energy "without any"=+  energy

short content description : changing without change

Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 21, 2017, 07:40:26 PM
IT IS A GERAL THEOREM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%E2%80%93Lagrange_equation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_

Which kind of dynamics you exspect by such an impossible trial of
"increase"=+ of potential energy "without any"=+  energy

short content description : changing without change

lancalV: I take an example: increase the length of a spring without any external energy, and don't forget: focus on the device...
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: lancaIV on September 21, 2017, 07:58:57 PM
you are writing about your "ideal motor" that it is arithmetical 100/99,66 in % efficient.
Fine

http://www.overunity.com/watermotor/index.htm  arithmetical efficiency ?
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 21, 2017, 08:05:27 PM
True, it is my thread. And my device creates the energy.

http://www.overunity.com/watermotor/index.htm  arithmetical efficiency ?

Don't forget: focus on the device...
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: lancaIV on September 21, 2017, 08:15:18 PM
http://overunity.com/16885/increase-the-potential-energy-without-any-energy/#.WcP_usvwDCw

http://overunity.com/16885/increase-the-potential-energy-without-any-energy/dlattach/attach/160358/image//

left side: gas pressure : P=1 Pa                                                    right side : pressure 100 bar

1 bar =  ?????? Pa
https://www.convertunits.com/from/bar/to/pascal
= 100.000 Pascal, one-hundred-thousand
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 21, 2017, 08:21:51 PM
http://overunity.com/16885/increase-the-potential-energy-without-any-energy/#.WcP_usvwDCw
left side: gas pressure : P=1 Pa                right side : pressure 100 bar

1 bar =  ?????? Pa
https://www.convertunits.com/from/bar/to/pascal
= 100.000 Pascal, one-hundred-thousand

Are you crazy ?
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: lancaIV on September 21, 2017, 08:30:22 PM
http://overunity.com/16885/increase-the-potential-energy-without-any-energy/dlattach/attach/160358/image//

Look for the left pressure number and look for the right side pressure number

https://www.convertunits.com/from/bar/to/pascal
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 21, 2017, 08:32:02 PM
http://overunity.com/16885/increase-the-potential-energy-without-any-energy/dlattach/attach/160358/image//

Look for the left pressure number and look for the right side pressure number

It was the old device... I found my error a long time ago. The new device is in the pdf file, it is not the triangle. The pdf file has 4 pages.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 21, 2017, 08:36:20 PM
LancaIV

http://www.nonsense.com
strange
, and place

1/2^7

the                 %               €      words all

over the place.

VIDAr
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: lancaIV on September 21, 2017, 08:52:35 PM
It was the old device... I found my error a long time ago. The new device is in the pdf file, it is not the triangle. The pdf file has 4 pages.

not impossible,but
blue spheres will becoming dots and the shaft a light Spot : no classical mechanical,
but quantum mechanical

f.e. spanisch patent,approved and granted
1€Cent/KWh champion-ship
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 21, 2017, 08:57:27 PM

http://overunity.com/16885/increase-the-potential-energy-without-any-energy/msg510815/#msg510815

Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 22, 2017, 03:24:39 AM
#5 file "text-inv-3.pdf"

At final, the device is a square

LowQ: so lancalV is a troll, why ADMIN don't destroy its account?
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: lancaIV on September 22, 2017, 09:47:59 AM

the not above doing- this is real troll-ing

Actually you are a "nobody",virtual and real.

wr
OCWL

p.s.: I normally invest my time in usefull and functional thinks
and things
and administrated a project which became technical
approved and granted.
TECHNICAL STANDART= "Peers degree solution"

this will be -in memoriam Otto Stein-
"DIE ZUKUNFT DER TECHNIK"

Lord Kelvin meets Kirchhoff
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 22, 2017, 01:42:32 PM

the not above doing- this is real troll-ing

Actually you are a "nobody",virtual and real.

wr
OCWL

p.s.: I normally invest my time in usefull and functional thinks
and things
and administrated a project which became technical
approved and granted.
TECHNICAL STANDART= "Peers degree solution"

this will be -in memoriam Otto Stein-
"DIE ZUKUNFT DER TECHNIK"

Lord Kelvin meets Kirchhoff

The only fault I see is you.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 22, 2017, 04:27:12 PM
#5 file "text-inv-3.pdf"

At final, the device is a square

LowQ: so lancalV is a troll, why ADMIN don't destroy its account?

I'm not sure it is trolling. Maybe it is. He replies in a code like way. Posting links to something he expect us to understand have any connection or relevance to the topic.
His replies is very messy with words all over the place. Hard to get a good overview of his messages - that can ofcourse be due to lingual challenges. Can't arrest people for that.
I have reported him to admin. Nothing happens. It's like a virus that is tracking down new topics and attacs them with disinformation.

Vidar
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 22, 2017, 04:41:50 PM

I'm not sure it is trolling. Maybe it is. He replies in a code like way. Posting links to something he expect us to understand have any connection or relevance to the topic.
His replies is very messy with words all over the place. Hard to get a good overview of his messages - that can ofcourse be due to lingual challenges. Can't arrest people for that.
I have reported him to admin. Nothing happens. It's like a virus that is tracking down new topics and attacs them with disinformation.

Vidar

Yeah ! I read this morning a lot of lancalV's messages, it is crazy ! The barrier of the language cannot explain the strange of the messages. I'm happy to see I'm not alone :)

Maybe:

1/3 of lancalV: want to help
1/3 of lancalV: troll
1/3 of lancalV: psychiatric problem
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 22, 2017, 07:12:05 PM
It should, however, be ok to "contribute" with sceptism, questioning the idea, bringing up logic math, accounting for every possible scenario that the inventor did not think of.

Vidar
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 23, 2017, 04:54:54 AM
You're right, he should.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Magluvin on September 23, 2017, 06:47:53 AM
You're right, he should.

Sure there are rights.  But they need to redefined a bit....

Its like Antifa stopping traffic of people that just want to be on there way. They have the right to protest, BUT, it should not infringe on others peaceful day just to try and get a point across. There are traffic laws. The right to protest does not give the right to tell others where to go or even if they can go by blocking traffic in the streets.

Here I find it disruptive to a thread, with like was said, cryptic, spread out over the page and some times not discernible, and finally some not on topic. And a lot of threads are hit with this from him day in and day out.

I dont find most of it helpful and it takes sometimes large sections of thread pages.

But some seem to have nothing better to do.  The problem with putting someone on ignore is if anther poster has conversation with the ignored, then reading becomes confusing at times.

Mags
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: lancaIV on September 23, 2017, 11:06:03 AM
Outsider or Insider ?
experiment
quantitative/qualitative Komplexitaetsanalytik
90/10       80/20     50/50    20/80    10/90

laws&order                         Dozent                laws&order
Doctrin
Dogma

activ25,first statement :".... breaks all physics law-s about  conservation of energy "

http://overunity.com/16885/increase-the-potential-energy-without-any-energy/dlattach/attach/160358/image// (http://overunity.com/16885/increase-the-potential-energy-without-any-energy/dlattach/attach/160358/image//)

written beside the triangle on the right side

he knows -statement consequently- the "Physics"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem)

second statement:" Increase the potential energy without any energy "

activ25: Approvement please ! Math.-errors independant !

1/3 of lancalV: want to help
1/3 of lancalV: troll
1/3 of lancalV: psychiatric problem

activ25,creativity becomes ever a psychiatric problem,for the others,which are afraid about loosing
"crazy" :        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crazy

a.  Social Laws dis-/order
b.  Social Laws and mental dis-/order

Magluvin:                                best and worst case (scenario)

dad : pro- or anti-fa                          mum: anti- or pro-fa

child,their kid:nihilist
(middlefinger-generation)

But I,personally,am neither pro- and not anti-fa  nor nihilist.

creativity,destroying included,rules the world

Schoepferische Zerstoerung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter)

activ25: I make a difference between "crazy"(brainstorming) and "stupid" :

"manager magazin" creativity-coach article  example:
"..... 12 birds laying on a tree-ast and the thirteenth felt."
This is for me not more "crazy creativity" this is ,for me personally,
an "individual coach stupidity" (without sin,absolutely destruct )

Primat:
minimum -bilateral,integrity! or common,geral -consense
and minimum knowledge and  experience leveling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_(technology)#Netiquette
Outsider or insider ? know the rules,laws and order=apply
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: lancaIV on September 23, 2017, 04:39:51 PM

You all have the "right" to add whichever poster you desire to your ignore list in preferences,, as such you will not see the posts from that poster.

You can take control of your own life or leave it to others to run it for you,, your choice :)

well written,such sensual words,real world related :

let us ignore people their deficiencies

let us ignore the old men their aches and
com(m)ercial violation

let us ignore the billons of analphabets

the Kims and Donalds

You does not to go to war,
in inter-continental rocket and -net era,
the neuronal and nuclear war comes to you

it will not ignore you
by total responsibility

will the oldies,analphabets and deficient people like to be ignored ?

Sincerely
OCWL
p.s.:
Low-Q,you are on -my- ignore-list

activ25:
if you find one wrong physics or technics related statement,
not grammar,
you will get all my posts in this thread deleted,no problem

webby1:
"You can take control of your own life or leave it to others to run it for you, your choice" :

by ignoring and disrespecting
your and international constitutional "right/-s" :)
and
your and international constitutional "obligation/-s" :-\ :'( :P

No more grand-/parents and their relatives ?
grand-/uncle/-aunt(sg./pl.)
bro./sis.,neighbours ?
married ? child-/s ?
Robinson(-island)-list ?
anti-
reclam(clamare,clamor: shouting,crying)
propaganda(pagare:paying)

(be)Fry-day,when ..... ?
Independance Day
the day after

wysiwywg
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 23, 2017, 07:36:00 PM
If we are on this forum, it is to find a solution (except trolls or their cousins the official physicians), the most important is the solution, not the road to find the solution. A theoretical solution or a practical solution, but a solution. And all people can contribute.

There is no law that says : it is not possible to create the energy, only a limited theorem of Noether, limited because there are hypothesis.

Never let a scientist create a belief in you that something is impossible. Inventors are always above scientists.

Science is the slave of the Техника.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 23, 2017, 09:38:32 PM
I can agree with you active25. However, science is not settled. Science is all about research, it takes nothing for granted, it fails all the time, it learns from mistakes.

So I mean that science should be welcome here - because it is all about doing research and questioning everything no matter how logic the results from research appears to be.

Vidar
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: lancaIV on September 23, 2017, 09:58:04 PM
If we are on this forum, it is to find a solution (except trolls or their cousins the official physicians), the most important is the solution, not the road to find the solution. A theoretical solution or a practical solution, but a solution. And all people can contribute.

There is no law that says : it is not possible to create the energy, only a limited theorem of Noether, limited because there are hypothesis.

Never let a scientist create a belief in you that something is impossible. Inventors are always above scientists.

Science is the slave of the Техника.

Die Technik ist weder der Sklave der Wissenschaft
noch die Wissenschaft die Sklavin der Technik (free of Kyrill-ian language)

Tecnique is Method/-ism,in multiple ways, for a same solution

We are in this Forum to re-/present our knowledge about technologies,
the production method and production materials to offer a real solution,cost-effective !

except trolls or their cousins the official physicians
::)
activa25 :

an official physician   and  official scientific advicer :
Dr.phys.                                 CSc.
with first and family name
Dr.phys. Pavel Imris,CSc.

works with the conservation of energy laws conditioning and the Noether Theorem
but these does not hinder to declare scientifical :

Apparatus for checking whether mechanical energy contradicts the energy conservation set

Apparatus for checking whether electrical energy can be destroyed

Device for checking whether mechanical energy can be generated by itself

Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 23, 2017, 10:04:01 PM

You all have the "right" to add whichever poster you desire to your ignore list in preferences,, as such you will not see the posts from that poster.

You can take control of your own life or leave it to others to run it for you,, your choice :)
I cant find that ignore-button. Where do I find it. Can't even find "preferences" :o
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 23, 2017, 10:30:56 PM
Low-Q: up : Profil ->  forum_profile and another menu appears below, go to modify-profile -> edit buddy_list -> ignore -list something like that

lancalV: the time you took for write your messages is bigger than the time to understand my device

Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: lancaIV on September 23, 2017, 10:45:45 PM
activa25: I wrote as target : "cost effective" !

functionality of your device is unimportant,if expensive !

target:   100 EUROS/KW installation costs !
Gúzman: mini-investment/-credit
(1-2 Dollar/day/capita)household
3 billions 2017
? billions 2050

Dr. Pavel Imris lost cause this "BUERO99" a value about 18 Mio. EUROS, strategic device: Uran-Centrifuge  8)
An illegal DPMA-action,Dr. Imris is Slovakian,not German.

I offered him the possibility to process against the german estate,but he resist.
His living condition: HartzIV

By several phone-calls he often spoke to sell his inventions :
to China.

I have with him some assigned letters. 8)

Low-IQ-s are for this worldwide project not invited

free/overunity energy device:
water/wind/solar/thermo/gravity generator
= no active process input , 100% energy gain

? up to 24h nonstop/365 ?
compressed max potential:
KW/Kg   KW/Lt.(cbm)
earth: material resource/consumer
recyclable ?
refurbishable ?
ultra-low resistance
enviromental impact
sustainable development

Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 23, 2017, 11:04:09 PM
Low-Q: up : Profil ->  forum_profile and another menu appears below, go to modify-profile -> edit buddy_list -> ignore -list something like that

lancalV: the time you took for write your messages is bigger than the time to understand my device
Thanks! Found it 😊
I can see that members on my ignore list has posted, but I have to click on a link to view it. Now the thread suddenly got 2 miles shorter😁
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 24, 2017, 05:50:08 AM
lancalV: I don't speak about a device on a video, nor a magic device, nor a conversion of energy, I wrote about a device that can create the energy. Here, when a guy post a video on a device, so many people reply ! They don't want to understand, just want magic. Exactly the same when in physics forum you post on a dark hole or dark matter... A lot of people believe in electricity/electromagnetism overunity device and post a lot of threads on this subject, high frequency, non linear basic parts, even sparks ! so it is difficult to understand where it could be an overunity device (if there is one) at final it is impossible to understand something, just dream, dream and dream. The efficiency of a device that can create the energy is very high because you can make a lot of cycle per second. The cost of my device is very low compared to a solar panel if I take in account the output power. My device has a very high power to weight and volume to weigh. And break the law of conservation of energy means an antigravity device is possible. My device is simple to understand, cheap, not complex in theory, not complex to build at least to test in a lab. My device works with mass, friction (take energy from friction in account in a lab is possible), proportional law for the force of the springs, and with blue spheres bigger than I described. And look at the motor of a car now, at start it was a vapor motor. So, my device try to break the law of conservation of energy, only that, after I have a lot of ideas to build the device with electromagnetism not springs, so use the fields directly like that it is easy to do and you can make a lot of cycle per second. Break the law of conservation is the most important thing to do. Not to believe in magic. In another thread, have you, you or Pavel, explain how its device works ? Not a video, not a complex document, just explain very easily like I done. People don't want to explain the theory of their device because it doesn't work or it is a fake or they can't explain, they prefer to believe in magic.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: lancaIV on September 24, 2017, 10:22:36 AM
active25: I also do not speak,I wrote and actually I am writing about
law and order = applying

Biot-Savart law = Ampére law = Laplace law
amplyfied electro-magnetism

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&date=20040226&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP&CC=DE&NR=20317795U1&KC=U1&ND=4# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&date=20040226&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP&CC=DE&NR=20317795U1&KC=U1&ND=4#)

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&date=20091130&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP&CC=PT&NR=104078A&KC=A&ND=4# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&date=20091130&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP&CC=PT&NR=104078A&KC=A&ND=4#)
the electro-magnet (in detail,here with foils)
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/mosaics?CC=DE&NR=20317795U1&KC=U1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20040226&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/mosaics?CC=DE&NR=20317795U1&KC=U1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20040226&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)

left side image : the electro-magnet (here with foils or coils)
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/mosaics?CC=PT&NR=104078A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=4&date=20091130&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/mosaics?CC=PT&NR=104078A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=4&date=20091130&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)

activ25,I did publicated it. btw.: ex-granted,now free ,"open source"

for mW up to MW devices

clear description:
how to use

Think in an easy manner,as inventor :

you have an idea

5000 ideas
1000 ideas-outings
300 board-projects
----------------------------
150 to market
120 losts producing fails
----------------------------
20 break-even
10 gain-ideas  (gain tax ?)

source: KIENBAUM CONSULTANCE, +/-500 middle/great companies

company-outside ideas ? buying ? the idea,the inventor ?
stealing the idea ? process-costs/time !

capital-venture: 100 knocking trials 10 responds 1 project

you are making part of an investor-round-table and they are in contact
1st meeting
curriculum vitae
outfit/infit ?
a-/de-/re- spect

the free chances/riscs-discussion
project-time-schedule
report
the investor/-s gain potentials(social/finance) and
the society gain(social/finance)
gain=losts for some others
contract conditions,budget
bilateral controle

your degrees - trust and faith will become availed,"polygraphical"
do it also

look for professional "business angel"-s,when needed

Have a sinfull Sunday and future

Sincerely
OCWL

p.s.: good luck,to find your right partners
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 25, 2017, 02:58:53 PM
Yeah, maybe there is someone in this forum who can understand what I wrote.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 25, 2017, 05:17:12 PM
Have you had any progress with your idea? Done som more calculations?

Vidar
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 25, 2017, 08:27:20 PM
Yes, I progress to find another methods than mechanic spheres like electromagnetism. But my mechanic device in the pdf file is finished, it is logical, and all the calculations are in the file because I used logic, I proved the sum of energy is not conserved with a theoretical device. I don't know what I can add to be more clear. For you it is not logical ?
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 25, 2017, 11:16:48 PM
Yes, I progress to find another methods than mechanic spheres like electromagnetism. But my mechanic device in the pdf file is finished, it is logical, and all the calculations are in the file because I used logic, I proved the sum of energy is not conserved with a theoretical device. I don't know what I can add to be more clear. For you it is not logical ?

Well, I'm not very good at symbols and equations. The only thing my gut feeling says, is that if a sum or a product of different factors is higher or lower than the numbers and factors you put in to the equation, the calculations must be incorrectly done.

It must be issues with the calculation. And if the result cannot be tested and proven physically, we cannot disprove or confirm the concept. That leaves behind an idea with lack of credibility. An idea that is pretty much useless.

As you understand, scepsism fluorishes when people can't physically prove a given idea or calculation.

People need to observe physical results. Knowing, rather than believing or making assumtions and early conclusions.

Maybe you should go through the calculations one more time and carefully scan the calculations and factors for missing parts. I'm 100% sure something is missing, or added one time too many.

Vidar
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 26, 2017, 06:27:27 AM
Low-Q: it is possible to test this device but in a lab, and it is possible to build one example with real components. Oh, yes, I would like to have practical prove that the device works. I take hypothesis to cancel all calculations, it is only logical demonstration. For me it is better than a long list of calculations  where a mistake is easily done. In physics, even in theory with all simplifications, the sum of energy is always constant.  My device is like a glass of water with water on Earth, I can take hypothesis: gravity is constant, no friction and the energy is conserved. Here, like I need to have a changing in the direction of the attraction, I need the springs  (the springs are there to create an artificial gravity) and it is very logical. I don't need any complex equation or calculation.

webby1:  my device needs to have a function discontinuous, it is very important, in the contrary, the theorem of Noether is applicable and the energy is conserved, so I need to have something that moves outside the device. With your example the function is continuous (or I didn't understand your example).

Thanks to try to help me :)
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 26, 2017, 08:00:21 AM
Stretched springs carry potential energy that someone has put in there. If this is called artificial gravity, someone has done the work to make it be that way in advance. That work is perfectly conserved, as the other factors in the design. Isn't it?
Nothing has been violated. Everything is conserved. Nothing new.

Vidar
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 26, 2017, 09:30:42 AM
I counted the potential energy at start and at final in my equations (and thinking). There is a difference that I called 'e' at final.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Magluvin on September 26, 2017, 09:51:14 AM
Well, not everything is conserved...

If we have a 10uf cap at 10v and connect it in parallel to another identical 10uf read 0v and after the caps even out to 5v each, we lost 50% of the total energy that was in the cap initially at 10v, when we calc the total power left in both caps resting at 5v. The argument was that it is resistance that burned off the 50% energy in the transfer from cap to cap.  Well thats not true. The resistance only changes the time it takes for the caps to go from 10v and 0v to 5v and 5v each. If we could count the electron imbalance of the 10v cap and count how much of that imbalance is now distributed between the 2 caps, that count would remain the same whether the resistance was 1Mohm or if it were 0 ohm as in ideal conditions. So, where did we lose the 50% in the transfer? And, did we get the heat for free under those conditions being that we didnt use the energy via the transfer of electron imbalance to do any work other than expand the pressure of the 10v cap into a capacitance that is twice the size, 10uf to 20uf, caps parallel. In the ideal situation we get no heat yet we still lost 50% of the energy we started with in the 10v 10uf cap. Electron count. You simply cannot get 7.07v in each cap from a single 10v cap. That would solve it for resistance fault if it did come out that way for the ideal situation of no resistance. But the electron count would say no. To get 7.07v in each cap from a single 10v cap would require and addition of electrons in the system, which isnt going to happen either. Resistance does not eat electrons. Resistance converts the passage of electrons into heat. The electron count remains the same, resistance or not.

So the 50% energy loss. Where did we lose it? There is an article on this that Poynt had found on the subject after he took notice of what I was claiming on this. They say the same thing, where did we lose the 50% as it wasnt conserved in the ideal situation when going by electron count.

So energy conservation needs a better looking at in other situations also. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 26, 2017, 10:24:59 AM
Well, that is not completely true. If you charge a 1000 l tank with water. The tank is a capacitor. This tank is connected to an equal tank at the same level. The connection is a tube with a ball valve at the bottom.
Now, open the ball valve, and let the water flow into the other tank. After a while there is 500 liters in each. Now you have the same total storage of potential water.
What you suggest, is that both tanks should have 707 liters in each, and asks where did the lost 414 liters of water go, and conclude with the following state: There is lost energy on the way.

The same example applies to a capacitor. It is not only the Voltage (pressure at the bottom of the tank), but also the potential energy storage. You end up with 20uF capacitors with 5V in each. That is the exact same potential energy storage as one 10uF capacitor at 10V. No energy is lost.

Vidar
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Magluvin on September 26, 2017, 10:59:43 AM
Well, that is not completely true. If you charge a 1000 l tank with water. The tank is a capacitor. This tank is connected to an equal tank at the same level. The connection is a tube with a ball valve at the bottom.
Now, open the ball valve, and let the water flow into the other tank. After a while there is 500 liters in each. Now you have the same total storage of potential water.
What you suggest, is that both tanks should have 707 liters in each, and asks where did the lost 414 liters of water go, and conclude with the following state: There is lost energy on the way.

The same example applies to a capacitor. It is not only the Voltage (pressure at the bottom of the tank), but also the potential energy storage. You end up with 20uF capacitors with 5V in each. That is the exact same potential energy storage as one 10uF capacitor at 10V. No energy is lost.

Vidar

You need to look at it as energy potential(pressure) and the size of the container.  If you open the valve of the water tank that is 1000L there is going to be an amount of work that it can produce if you apply that output. Once you release some of that pressure into another identical tank and each is at 500L, there is a 50% loss. You cannot do the same amount of work with the total of 2 tanks with 500l than you could with the initial tank of 1000L  Here is why....

If you emptied the 1000l tank into another identical tank till they were both 500L, you used that high pressure(due to gravity) of the 1000l to only transfer from tank A to tank B till the equal. No work done other than the transfer from tank to tank. We could have run a gen during the transfer, but we didnt. We lost it, 50%.

So if we do work with the 1000l, the pressure is much greater for the first half of the 1000l, and the second half is the same as either 500l tank.  You get more work done with the initial 1000l.  Same as 100lb of air pressure. You will get more work done during the first 50lb used because it is still higher pressure than 2 identical tanks with 50lb.  We use half of the 100lb and we got more work done at the higher pressure, and we are left with 50lb, then compare what amount of work you get from 1 of the 2 identical tanks with 50lb ea, and are still left with 1 tank at 50lb.  Get it???

And to what you say of the caps, no. We dont end with 2 20uf caps.  We have 2 caps period and each are 10uf.  If we combine them we end with basically 1 capacitance at 20uf.    10uf at 10v and another 10uf at 0v. Connect them together and the total is 20uf. Disconnect them and we have a 10uf cap at 5v and another 10uf at 5v.  Its very simple. And my conclusions are validated here on this forum. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Magluvin on September 26, 2017, 11:13:20 AM
And that is how you do the electron count. 100gal of water div into 2 containers, you end with 50gal in each. The resistance is the valve and it only changes the time of the transfer to leveling out, the valve does not consume energy nor take or add water to the system. Same with the electron count, we end up with the same electron count and the resistance only changes the time it takes for each cap to be equal and the resistance doesnt add or take away electrons from the system.

So if we use the energy stored in the 10uf 10v cap only till it is down to 5v, we got more done with that first half of the 10v down to 5v than we can get from either pair of caps at 5v each

10uf 10v use energy till you are down to 5v.   So we still have 5v left

Now have 2 10uf 5v ea  and use the energy of 1 of them.  We still have 1 10uf 5v left just like above.

So the energy from the 10uf at 10v will do more work down to the 5v cutoff than 10uf 5v can do and in both situations we are left with 10uf 5v.

Mags
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 26, 2017, 12:02:58 PM
And that is how you do the electron count. 100gal of water div into 2 containers, you end with 50gal in each. The resistance is the valve and it only changes the time of the transfer to leveling out, the valve does not consume energy nor take or add water to the system. Same with the electron count, we end up with the same electron count and the resistance only changes the time it takes for each cap to be equal and the resistance doesnt add or take away electrons from the system.

So if we use the energy stored in the 10uf 10v cap only till it is down to 5v, we got more done with that first half of the 10v down to 5v than we can get from either pair of caps at 5v each

10uf 10v use energy till you are down to 5v.   So we still have 5v left

Now have 2 10uf 5v ea  and use the energy of 1 of them.  We still have 1 10uf 5v left just like above.

So the energy from the 10uf at 10v will do more work down to the 5v cutoff than 10uf 5v can do and in both situations we are left with 10uf 5v.

Mags
Actually not. From 10V to 5V, or 5V to 0V in the same capacitor provides the same amount of energy. The difference in both is 5V at the same capacity.
The difference is time.
If you load the capacitor with a 1kOhm resistor, it takes shorter time to discharge from 10 to 5V, and longer time to discharge from 5V to 0V - actually, it takes forever to discharge from 5V to 0V if the capacitor is perfect. The energy in both cases is equal. When you charge the capacitor through the same resistor, it takes shorter time to charge from 0V to 5V, than from 5V to 10V. In the meantime you have lost energy through the resistor during charging. The energy input is therfor higher than the potential energy in the fully charged capacitor.

Lets say for the cause of simplicity, you have a mass of 1kg you want to lift 1 meter. Lets say you spend 1 second the first half meter. Then 1 hour the last half meter. What is the potential energy between 0m and 0.5m, and between 0.5m and 1m? Not surprisingly they are equal.
In this particular case, the altitude is the charge, and the mass is the capacity.

Vidar
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 26, 2017, 12:09:37 PM
Mags: look at this link: http://www.smpstech.com/charge.htm

But I'm agree with you Mags, it is possible to create the energy (or destroy).

Low-Q: my document is not clear ?
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Magluvin on September 26, 2017, 01:07:21 PM
Actually not. From 10V to 5V, or 5V to 0V in the same capacitor provides the same amount of energy. The difference in both is 5V at the same capacity.
The difference is time.
If you load the capacitor with a 1kOhm resistor, it takes shorter time to discharge from 10 to 5V, and longer time to discharge from 5V to 0V - actually, it takes forever to discharge from 5V to 0V if the capacitor is perfect. The energy in both cases is equal. When you charge the capacitor through the same resistor, it takes shorter time to charge from 0V to 5V, than from 5V to 10V. In the meantime you have lost energy through the resistor during charging. The energy input is therfor higher than the potential energy in the fully charged capacitor.

Lets say for the cause of simplicity, you have a mass of 1kg you want to lift 1 meter. Lets say you spend 1 second the first half meter. Then 1 hour the last half meter. What is the potential energy between 0m and 0.5m, and between 0.5m and 1m? Not surprisingly they are equal.
In this particular case, the altitude is the charge, and the mass is the capacity.

Vidar

"Actually not. From 10V to 5V, or 5V to 0V in the same capacitor provides the same amount of energy. The difference in both is 5V at the same capacity.
The difference is time."

Absolutely not.  You are missing it.

The 10v down to 5v has a great advantage over 5v down to 0v.

The 10v to 5v still has the potential of the beginning output of the 5v when it gets down to 5v, And the 10v to 5v is working on potential above 5v throughout the use, where the 5v only has 5v down to 0v potential during its use. Run the numbers.  10uf 10v holds 2 times the energy of a 20uf cap at 5v. Yep. ;)

In the cap to cap, we lost 50% doing the cap to cap.  There are many online calculators for caps. Run the calculator to calc the energy of a 10uf cap at 10v, then run it for 20uf at 5v(equal to total 2 10uf at 5v) You will see the loss. You can do more work with a 10uf at 10v than 20uf at 5v. Check it out for yourself. Its not what you think. Its the same for water tanks and gravity and the same as air pressure tanks. You would need to end up with 7.07v in each cap for the 2 caps combined energy to equal the energy of 1 cap at 10v. Run that on the energy in a cap calculator online or work out the equation yourself. Well by the electron imbalance count we cannot end up with 7.07v each. Just like we cannot end up with 2 buckets of water with 7.07gal from 1 bucket that had 10gal.

Its been a big discussion on and off here. It is what it is.  Even Woopy said Opah! Couldnt believe the loss. Its been through the ringer.  In the back of my mind I couldnt see the resistance as the loss, considering the electron count evidence.  If you could count how many electrons you take from one plate of the cap and shove it into the other plate, you can determine the resulting voltage charge of a particular cap value, every time. More electrons taken from one plate and forced into the other plate is stored pressure(voltage) If you know the exact capacitance and the voltage charge on it, you can use Coulombs law to figure the electron imbalance of the plates. And that number will be the exact same if the cap is charged to exactly 10v after discharging it to 0 and charge back to exactly to 10v. Each cap value will have its own electron count imbalance across its plates for 10v charge.  A tiny cap will need less electron count differential than a large cap, just like an air tank, less air molecules to get a small tank to 100lb than a large tank to get to 100lb.

Some claim that charging a cap say in a output of a power supply has this loss. Its not true. If it were then we would not have power supplies that approach 100%eff. We are mostly just topping off an output cap in a supply, not replenishing from 0v.  Only at start up of the supply where the cap is actually 0v is there a possibility of these losses, and even then the new slow start supplies take care of that issue with step charging till optimum output is achieved.

Mags
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Magluvin on September 26, 2017, 01:18:46 PM
Mags: look at this link: http://www.smpstech.com/charge.htm (http://www.smpstech.com/charge.htm)

But I'm agree with you Mags, it is possible to create the energy (or destroy).

Low-Q: my document is not clear ?

The energy loss in the cap to cap scenario can be associated to the energy it took to move the electrons/water/air from 1 container to the other one till leveled out. That is the only thing I can think of as to where the energy went. But, we could have used that energy in the transfer from cap to cap to do something and still end with 5v in each cap.

But the saying that the energy is lost in the cap to cap is due to resistance and heat is not true. It is only a valve set to a particular position between the 2 tanks to slow the transfer down, but in the end all of the electrons leveled out just like water or air and we lost the energy by not using the energy that occurred in the transfer to do other work in the process. We just released potential pressure into a tank that is basically 2 times as large. We lost it stupidly as I say, unless the goal was to divide that pressure/water/air into 2 containers for what ever reason. That is a lossy goal. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 26, 2017, 02:55:22 PM
The energy loss in the cap to cap scenario can be associated to the energy it took to move the electrons/water/air from 1 container to the other one till leveled out. That is the only thing I can think of as to where the energy went. But, we could have used that energy in the transfer from cap to cap to do something and still end with 5v in each cap.

But the saying that the energy is lost in the cap to cap is due to resistance and heat is not true. It is only a valve set to a particular position between the 2 tanks to slow the transfer down, but in the end all of the electrons leveled out just like water or air and we lost the energy by not using the energy that occurred in the transfer to do other work in the process. We just released potential pressure into a tank that is basically 2 times as large. We lost it stupidly as I say, unless the goal was to divide that pressure/water/air into 2 containers for what ever reason. That is a lossy goal. ;)

Mags
I must figure this out. I can't sleep at night with a puzzle like that riding my brain all night :D

Vidar
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 26, 2017, 05:22:47 PM
So if we have two tanks. 1x1x1m each. One filled with 1000 l of fluid.
That full tank have a potential energy of 500 units with reference to the ground because center of the mass is 0.5 meter above ground.
Then we open the valve so 500 liter fills the other tank.
As the waterlevel rises in the other tank, the remaining potential energy in the first tank drop both because the level is decreasing, and the initial reference level for the other tank will rise.

In reality, the potential energy in the first tank is only 250 units because we choose to fill the other tank, and not poor the fluid on the ground.

The remaining potential energy in each tank will finally reach 125 units each. 250 units combined. The same as the initial potential energy in the first tank. Energy is conserved.

Does this make sense? Will this apply to the capacitors as well?

Vidar.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 26, 2017, 06:36:52 PM
I just claimed that no energy is lost during the filling of the other tank.
The initial scenario is filling up a 2.nd cap with voltage.
While doing that from a 10V charged cap, the PE of the first cap will decrease. Not only because the voltage drops in that cap, but also because the reference voltage is rising in the other cap that is being charged.
The average PE of the first cap is therefor 1/2 of the PE that could exist if we discharged that 10V cap to zero. But we are not. It is discharged to 5V while the second cap is charged to 5V. The sum of discharged PE and the remaining PE is the same as the fully 10V charged single cap.

I just confirmed that energy is conserved.

Vidar
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 26, 2017, 07:13:06 PM
Low-Q, webby1, Magluvin: please, speak about my device because if you mix electricity and mechanics (or other example in mechanics) it becomes impossible to read. I'm agree the energy is conserved with standard capacitors and Magluvin didn't understand something. But anyway, come back to my device, I count all the energies. And again, the theorem of Noether cannot be applied here because the function is not continuous. Could you be precise, where in my thinking, I'm wrong ? The energies X, Y and W are known and without a white disk the energy is conserved, the springs lost a potential energy but the walls give an energy, I calculate with integrals and the sum of energy is conserved without the white disk. But with the white disk, the sum of energy is not zero, it is 'e'. Now, be specific, and try to explain where I'm wrong please:

1/ move in/out spheres need an energy ?
2/ rotate the disk around the magenta point needs an energy ?
3/ I can't recover the energy from the difference of length L1/L2 ?
4/ the potential energy is not decrease by the same value 'd' at start and at final ?

Because, there are no other possibility.

Like there is no mass, there is no delay to transmit the pressure, so for you if the question 1/ and 2/ need and energy, could you explain ?
I don't know why the question 3/ could be true.
I calculate the sum of length for all springs at start and at final and it is the same (even it is logical with geometry), so I don't see why the question 4/ could be true.

NB: change the length of a spring don't need nor give an energy because it is like a molecule of water inside a glass of water on Earth, the molecule is attracted by gravity but others molecules around give Archimede force, so the sum if zero. It is the same with the springs and spheres. It is verified by calculation, without the white disk the sum of energy is well conserved and I take in account only the potential energy of the springs and the work from walls.

Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 26, 2017, 08:30:31 PM
You might be surprised at the connection between mechanical and electrical.
No, I'm not.

This is wrong,, you keep the same quantity of spheres.
And what is the problem ? The container keeps the same volume, the number of spheres is the same, the white disk keeps constant its volume. All volumes are constant.

Same quantity within a smaller volume simply means more pressure,, same quantity larger volume less pressure.
The volumes are constant.

webby1: the springs have no volume, again, to simplify the calculations.

Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Magluvin on September 26, 2017, 09:10:11 PM
I must figure this out. I can't sleep at night with a puzzle like that riding my brain all night :D

Vidar
]

The cap to cap is a well known exercise that has been misconstrued for some time claiming that the 50% loss is due to heat by way of resistance.

Here is the capacitor energy calculator....
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/electronics/capacitor_energy

10uf 10v is .5mJ

10uf 5v is ,125mJ

2 10uf caps(20uf) at 5v is .25mJ  Total of 1/2 the original energy in the single 10uf cap at 10v .5mJ

We lose half the energy dumping a full cap into an identical empty cap of the same capacitance value.

Now how I started thinking about it to come to my conclusion that the resistance plays no part in the 50% energy loss as many were claiming, was when they went ahead and said that if the caps were ideal, zero resistance, superconductive per say, that we would end up with 7.07v in each cap after the cap to cap and the voltage was leveled out between the 2 caps.  If we did the electron count, it would be impossible to get 7.07v in each cap from a dump of 10v in the initial cap. Cant happen just like we can get 2 buckets of water of 7.07 gal each from a single 10 gal bucket.

1 10uf 7.07v is .2499mJ   not .25 exactly because the 7.07 is rounded off from the actual figure. But you should get the drift.

20uf(2 10uf caps in parallel) at 7.07v is .499mJ  again would be .5mj if the .707 were not rounded off

So resistance or zero resistance, we still lose 50% of the original total energy of the 10uf 10v cap by dumping half of the charge into another same value cap.

Mags
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Low-Q on September 26, 2017, 10:01:40 PM
]

The cap to cap is a well known exercise that has been misconstrued for some time claiming that the 50% loss is due to heat by way of resistance.

Here is the capacitor energy calculator....
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/electronics/capacitor_energy (http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/electronics/capacitor_energy)

10uf 10v is .5mJ

10uf 5v is ,125mJ

2 10uf caps(20uf) at 5v is .25mJ  Total of 1/2 the original energy in the single 10uf cap at 10v .5mJ

We lose half the energy dumping a full cap into an identical empty cap of the same capacitance value.

Now how I started thinking about it to come to my conclusion that the resistance plays no part in the 50% energy loss as many were claiming, was when they went ahead and said that if the caps were ideal, zero resistance, superconductive per say, that we would end up with 7.07v in each cap after the cap to cap and the voltage was leveled out between the 2 caps.  If we did the electron count, it would be impossible to get 7.07v in each cap from a dump of 10v in the initial cap. Cant happen just like we can get 2 buckets of water of 7.07 gal each from a single 10 gal bucket.

1 10uf 7.07v is .2499mJ   not .25 exactly because the 7.07 is rounded off from the actual figure. But you should get the drift.

20uf(2 10uf caps in parallel) at 7.07v is .499mJ  again would be .5mj if the .707 were not rounded off

So resistance or zero resistance, we still lose 50% of the original total energy of the 10uf 10v cap by dumping half of the charge into another same value cap.

Mags
You haven't lost it. You just havent spent all yet as useful energy.
I can agree that it is a confusing experiment.
1. What is the initial PE?
2. What is the loss of PE after both have the same charge?
3. What is the difference from 2. after emtying both caps?

What is the sum of the answer in question 2 and 3?
The sum is the same as initial PE in the first cap.

Energy is conserved.

Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 27, 2017, 06:37:27 AM

If you place the sphere back in at L2, so that you can see\use the change in energy of the spring as compared to L1 , you would need to elevate that sphere up and over the white disk raising the spring potential higher than at L1 and then allow it to reduce down to L1 as the wheel rotates.

I recover an energy from the springs because L1>L2, is it ok for you ? for all spheres I need to move in/out.

When I move out a sphere of the container, the pressure is exactly the same than the sphere I move in. Look at the identical lines of pressure, they are always perpendiculary to the springs, and the springs change their orientation.

If then you were to use that energy difference between L1 and L2 you would need to replace that energy in order to move the sphere around and back to the "place" it started from.
No, you misunderstand the potential energy stored in the spring and the energy I recover/need to move out/move in  a sphere. The length of the spring is a potential energy recovered. I recover an energy when I move out a sphere, exactly the same when I recover an energy when I move out an object from a side of a container full of water under gravity. And I lost an energy when I move in the object. But here, the pressure are symmetric.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 27, 2017, 07:33:02 AM
I think you need to look into this part deeper.
Explain how you see the pressure please, because the springs simulate gravity. So, the lines of pressure are perpendiculary to the force of attraction with gravity, tou are ok with that ? So, with the springs it is the same.

You are not using the correct reference frame,, you do not have all of the energy in and out accounted for,, mainly that that is being put into your system, the deformation and or rotation is an input.
Your sentence is like, you're wrong, I don't know where, but you're wrong.

Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Magluvin on September 27, 2017, 07:34:34 AM
You haven't lost it. You just havent spent all yet as useful energy.
I can agree that it is a confusing experiment.
1. What is the initial PE?
2. What is the loss of PE after both have the same charge?
3. What is the difference from 2. after emtying both caps?

What is the sum of the answer in question 2 and 3?
The sum is the same as initial PE in the first cap.

Energy is conserved.

You tell me. ;) Ive laid out what I claim. I dont have 2 months to convince you like I had to do when I last made the claim. It took that long for that session to sink in with other top guys here. Once they actually took notice they finally agreed and it has been settled here. I made the claim several times before that and was ignored over bout a 2 year stint. Reread what I wrote here about this and do some tests and calculations yourself. If you find fault in what I claimed then just simply prove me wrong. I put it to you here in a more detailed manner than I had done to convince others before because its ingrained in my mind and can describe it in better detail now than then. So put your thinking cap on and work it out, and if you can, provide convincing argument that what I said is not correct. Then Ill respond with a rebuttal.

You want to question me on Pe without giving me your version of that. Show me how and what I said is wrong and give me your numbers and how you came to arrive at those numbers and I will respond.

Mags
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Magluvin on September 27, 2017, 07:41:09 AM
P.S.

The water in the 2 tanks has the same weight as the first tank,, but now it can only fall 1\2 the distance that it could of fallen from the first tank.

To correctly use the water tank analogy for the cap to cap, the tanks need to be on the same level, not one above the other. Doing so with tanks at different levels offsets the balance that would be inherent with 2 like caps. The water needs to balance to equal parts by leveling out just like the caps. Having one water tank at a different height, that divided balance cant be had.

mags
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Magluvin on September 27, 2017, 09:19:58 AM
You tell me. ;) Ive laid out what I claim. I dont have 2 months to convince you like I had to do when I last made the claim. It took that long for that session to sink in with other top guys here. Once they actually took notice they finally agreed and it has been settled here. I made the claim several times before that and was ignored over bout a 2 year stint. Reread what I wrote here about this and do some tests and calculations yourself. If you find fault in what I claimed then just simply prove me wrong. I put it to you here in a more detailed manner than I had done to convince others before because its ingrained in my mind and can describe it in better detail now than then. So put your thinking cap on and work it out, and if you can, provide convincing argument that what I said is not correct. Then Ill respond with a rebuttal.

You want to question me on Pe without giving me your version of that. Show me how and what I said is wrong and give me your numbers and how you came to arrive at those numbers and I will respond.

Mags

One more thing.  My actual claim is that resistance is not the cause for the loss. But you are arguing the basic fact that there is no loss in the cap to cap. So you have a ways to go with understanding the basic point of the exercise. We lost it by reducing pressure that resulted in no work being done during the cap to cap connection of a charged cap into an identical cap at 0v.  A very similar case would be to have 2 12v car batteries. It may not be a 50% loss as a battery is a bit different than a cap.
If we have a fully charged 12v battery and a fully drained battery of the same make and model then we can calculate how much work can be done with the fully charged battery and use it till it is all the way drained to get the result, then we take the fully charged battery and connect it to the fully drained battery, you will not end up with the same amount of total energy of the 2 batteries combined as you could get out of the single fully charged battery.

There are a lot of sites and articles that will give you the same results for the cap to cap 50% loss. Most all will say the "unanimously agreed upon loss" is is the fault of resistance. On your point of there being no loss, that is an argument that just about anyone that works out the numbers will argue against you till you break. And if you dont end up realizing it for what it really is, then you must not agree with the capacitor energy calculators, nor any of the equations of formula that all arrive at the real and actual lossy conclusion. When we first discussed this when it was brought up in a big discussion about caps, most of us were just like you are now. Denial without full understanding. But once actual test were done, and the energy calculations were made over and over, the loss became very real. So like I said, show me your numbers and how exactly you arrived at those numbers that you say prove your reasons for believing that there is no loss and I will respond with where you are making your mistakes and correct them for you.

in the real world, doing the cap to cap as described is not a function used in any electronic devices. Its not a useful circuit in the least. it is a losing proposition. It is only a learning tool.  We do not want this circuit in any products because of the inherent loss.  One more time.......

If we have a 10uf cap at 10v and we use that to do work till its 0v, then we can measure and calculate the total energy used and the amount of work that can be done.

1)  If we used the energy from the 10uf 10v cap only till it is drained down to 5v and we disconnect out load, then we did a certain amount of work with that usage. Now we are left with a 10uf cap at 5v.

2)  So now say we have 2 10uf caps and each has 5v. Now lets just use one of them to do work till it is 0v and leave the other one at 5v.

In both cases 1 and 2, we end up with 1 cap with 5v. Are you going to tell me that the work we did with the first cap beginning at 10v till it was drained to the 5v level then disconnect the load, that the amount work that the cap provided during that drain down to 5v is not more work done than the second case where we did work from 10uf cap at 5v starting and drained down to 0v???  If that is your argument then you need to work on your basics of V*A=P.   If the load were a resistor and we repeated the work done tests 1 and 2 and we measured the heat generated by the resistor in each case, do you believe that in both cases the resistor produces the same 'amount' of heat for each case???  P=V*A is not a credible equation here? The higher voltage during the case 1 drain is not always throughout the test more than the voltage in case 2 during its drain into the resistor? ??? Think man think!

Mags
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Magluvin on September 27, 2017, 05:14:09 PM

Well,, I did not say they were,, BUT the WATER is!

mgh,,, interesting formula,, CoM of the water column is, when uniformly shaped, at the midpoint in the height of the column,, so a 1m tall tank has its CoM at 0.5m,, if you take the water above the 0.5m mark and dump it into the second tank :)

The P.S. part is after all is said and done the CoM is now lower and if it is mgh the same m with less h at the same g means less stored.

Funny thing that I can balance things together that are not even close to being in the same system except for the shared force to balance,,,,,  :)

Do you realize there is the same kind of loss if you charge the cap from a fixed DC voltage?  unless you charge it my way anyhow :)

"Do you realize there is the same kind of loss if you charge the cap from a fixed DC voltage?  unless you charge it my way anyhow"

Well i might not agree there. If the 2 caps are the same value, then there is a total 50% loss. If 1 cap is say 10uf 10v and the other is 1uf at 0v and then we do cap to cap. We get 9v each. Now calculate the energy left in the 10uf 9v and calculate the energy in the 1 uf 9v then add them together. The loss is significantly less. So if we think about the power supply as a very very large cap 10v and we charge a 1uf 0v to the ps 10v, wouldnt that in comparison to what I just explained be very similar with not that much of a loss? Would seem to me that the power supply lost nearly as much as the cap gained.  The loss happens hard in the identical cap to cap because the source cap lost a lot of pressure(V) resulting in part of the whole loss, where the power supply if solid would not. The 10u 10v to 1uf 0v cap to cap, the 10uf did not lose a lot of pressure so its energy level is still quite high, and then we add that to what energy level in in the 1uf 9v to find the end total.

I really cant see 50% loss in charging a cap from a power supply that simulates basically an infinitely large cap compared to the receiving empty cap. And I might say that the loss in charging a very tiny cap in comparison that the losses would be very minuscule.

Mags
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Magluvin on September 27, 2017, 06:46:23 PM
Your 10V PSU will provide its current at 10V,, how much voltage is needed to move charge carriers onto a plate at 0V,, it takes 0V+ some infinitesimal amount.

As long as the charging voltage is that infinitesimal amount of voltage above the plate voltage charge will move into the cap.
It takes Coulombs of charge to raise the voltage, the PSU will provide those Coulombs at the voltage it is set to,, so 10V @ 1A to charge a 1F cap from 0V to 1V , another 10V @ 1A to take that cap and raise it from 1V to 2V,, and so on. <<== it is the Coulombs that "fill" the cap.

What is the resistance of a cap with no charge to current flow from the source.
What is the resistance of a cap with 99% charge to current flow from the source.

If your source uses 10V @ 1A to charge the cap it is then wasting energy,, if this were water you would have this large fountain happening while filling until the water reached the top,, what a waste unless the fountain is what you want :)

Plot the energy per step while charging both for the cap and that supplied by the source,, use some value of base resistance for the cap so as to not hit that infinite current flow issue,,

To not have this "loss of unused energy" you can either ramp the voltage up from 0 to charge voltage or you can start with a very small capacitance and increase the capacitance until charge quantity is reached.
A coil storing some of that current "rush" in the magnetic field uses what would be wasted and then returns the field potential into the cap as the cap charges and its resistance to current flow from the source goes up,, is this the best way??? not sure but it does work fairly well.

I didnt get into it with them back them about charging a cap from a power supply, but it was said that there is the loss there and I just accepted it then as i was in awe of the 50%loss. But Im making a new connection with that idea as you posed it to me.  Here is my point..

Do you agree that we lost 50% in the 10uf to 10uf cap to cap deal?
If so do you also agree with the much smaller loss when the charged cap is 10uf and the receiving cap is 1uf? If not, you need to run the numbers again. Or you need to explain how and why the cap energy calculators are bunk. ;)

Now if you agree with both questions, then say we have a 1Fcap at 10v and a 1uf cap at 0v. Pretty much the 1uf cap will see the 1F 10v as a huge reservoir very very similar to the power supply. If the 1F charges the 1uf to be the same voltage in the end after cap to cap, you may need a meter that reads to the 4th decimal or just thinking possibly 5 decimals to see the voltage drop of the 1F cap. Just guessing but iI think Im close. In the power supply there are output caps that are no where near 1F. So it may be possible that the 1F can charge the 1uf quicker. Just again speculating an educated guess. for simple argument sake.  Now if you do read a voltage drop in the 1F cap, of which what is left would be the same voltage the 1uf cap charged to, then calculate the original energy in the 1F at 10v and then calculate the energy left in the 1F and then the 1uf and add them. The loss would be incredibly small compared to what you are saying about the power supply charging the cap.

So now Im convincing myself right here right now that no, the cap charging from the power supply to the empty cap should not be lossy at all but very small in the least. In my 1F example, there will not be that voltage drop you speak of that would be any different than the power supply other than possibly a .001v or .ooo5v or even a .05v difference for arguments sake, of which isnt even close to a loss level as you suggest. In fact, the power supply just may dip more than the 1F cap initially in the charging of the cap. that would and could be looked at with a scope. And I happen to have a 1F 20v car audio cap on the bench and a 10 amp var supply.

So here we may have stirred another possible controversy like the bad claim that resistance was the loss in the cap to cap exercise.  I seem to remember them claiming the loss from PS to cap back then, but maybe that is all wrong also. :o ;)   We may have to look at that closer now. ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 27, 2017, 09:08:08 PM

I have a fairly good idea of parts that are not being considered, I have a reasonable idea of the path those forces take,, I did suggest that you look into a Roberval system to help in being able to see some of these interactions.

You have not spoken about HOW the spring gets changed,, you have not spoken about how the changing shape that does not change in volume makes things move, and the input it takes to make the shape change,, whether that is from the container morphing or from the wheel spinning or both.

So ask yourself "HOW" does the spring get changed.  Ask yourself if there is motion needed for that change in spring to happen, then link the motion used and the change in the spring so you can follow the path of interaction.

Roberval is not the same device.

How the springs change ? the springs inside the container ? it is easy, each sphere has an Archimede force on it and a force from the spring attached on it, so the sum of these forces are zero. So it cost nothing to change the length of the springs WHEN the sphere is inside the container. It is like move up (or down) a molecule of water inside a glass full of water on Earth: it costs nothing.

I explained, I calculate the sum of energies for the device without the white disk, and the sum is well at zero. So the springs (of the spheres inside the container) don't need any energy nor give any energy.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 28, 2017, 05:31:08 AM

I guess you don't know a Roberval,, they are very fun things to play with,, you can use arms and levers or pulleys and string or gears or a combination of parts,, I made one that used water.

With a Roberval the Noether's theorem is applied so the device can't create an energy.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 28, 2017, 05:34:22 AM
The gain in energies you are measuring from L1 to L2 are the same energies needed to go from L2 back to L1.
No, the device moves from the start position to the end position. I never return to the start position, so I don't know where you find in the document I move and the lengths of the springs move from L2 to L1.

This short part describes a change in gradient caused by an external motion, that motion requires a force to go along with it.
This change in gradient is what causes the spring to change in its relative stored potential.
The device I measure the sum of energy is unstable. So I need an external device  (I call it the C_device to be clear) to control it. But this external device is perfect, no friction, etc. and this C_device recovers the energy from the device and gives energy if it is necessary, it is there only to control and in the same it counts the input/output of the energies. So, C_device counts the equations I wrote, only that.

Then by your definition as soon as the spring and sphere are removed there is no stored gain or loss since that condition is relative to the other spheres\springs\walls.

You also chose an arbitrary orientation for the observation of the spring, this is fine providing you keep using the same reference frame, which you do not when you do not also include the required changes on the spring and sphere to go back from L2 around the white wheel and back to L1.

The gain in energies you are measuring from L1 to L2 are the same energies needed to go from L2 back to L1.

This short part describes a change in gradient caused by an external motion, that motion requires a force to go along with it.
This change in gradient is what causes the spring to change in its relative stored potential.

If you are thinking about an oscillating system where the change of deformation is a natural event then the usage of the observed change in the spring stored potential will act as a damper to the system, it will slow it down,  this then would be your input.
This could be done with a heat gradient as well,, many ways of doing it BUT the source for the gradient must be included in the energy calculations,, this does not mean that YOU as the "operator" need to pay the cost, only that the cost is shown and understood.

Calculate the energy to deform the container,, if it is a natural event then you would calculate the full energy of that event,, say geothermal heating,, how many BTU's are available then becomes the limit on what you as the operator could extract.

The device don't oscillate. I describe the start position of the device and the end position. The device don't return at its original position. I win an energy from L1->L2. I don't need to calculate the exact energy I win because with my theoretical device it becomes logical. I explain my thinking: the sum of energy is conserved without the white disk. And after, I count the differences. I don't need calculations to prove something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 28, 2017, 03:11:35 PM
I don't extract the energy from one spring but all the springs of the spheres that must be move out the container to let pass the white disk (and the spheres must be put inside in the same time, but the lengths of these springs are lower). The energy is extract from the springs. I move out a sphere AND in the same time I move in a sphere behind the white disk, because the volume must be constant.

I'm logic, look at the equations. And I transform a complex problem in a simple because I take simplification: no mass, no friction, volume constant, spring with a constant force. I use simple laws of physics.

"After you have taken the spring\sphere energy out it is now at a low energy condition,, you must put it back in to continue,, so now you have a higher energy state in front and a lower energy state behind,,," not at all, you forget the work of the walls. Have you understand the device without the white disk ? The potential energy lost by springs are won by the walls, the sum is well constant with the white disk, I calculated it with integrals.

And with a theoretical mechanical device, the sum of energy must be constant, it means, the sum of energy can't be negative too.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 28, 2017, 04:43:44 PM
You don't understand. The device is with the white disk always. It is for understand a different easier device: without the white disk, like that it proves the sum of energy is conserved, it proves there are no others energy than the work of the walls and the potential energy of the springs.

1/ Device number one: without the white disk. It proves the sum of energies is constant. The principle is correct.

2/ Device number two; with the white disk. I calculated the sum of energies from the data of the device number one. Look at the equations. I took in account,:

- the potential energy of the springs at start and at final, reduces in comparaison to the device number one because there is the white disk, reduces of the same value at start and at final (the force of the springs don't depend of their length)
- the work of the walls, is the same than the device number one
- the extra energy from the difference of length L1>L2
- that's all, the white disk don't need (or give) an energy
- move out and in the spheres don't need (or give) an energy

When I speak about the negative energy it is to note that the sum must be constant, not positive AND not negative. Because there is no friction so the energy is in work in something or in a potential energy.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 28, 2017, 05:35:14 PM
"You are NOT describing the how's,, how does the spring\sphere move down from L1 to L2,"

I use an external device (called it C_device for control device). C_device is a perfect device, no loss. It control the device because my device is unstable. The C_device gives the energy my device needs and recover the energy it can. It is not very important, with what you recover the energy, when the sum of energy is not zero, you can use it like you want.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 28, 2017, 08:03:03 PM
Thank you.

Now can you tell all of us what those exchanges are for the c_drive,, sure it is ideal and suffers no losses itself,, but it will need to supply energy to move the sphere\spring down from L1 to L2 so it can then extract that exact same amount of energy out of the spring\sphere at L2 and then insert that spring\sphere back in at L2.

Your c_drive is the YOU I refer to as YOU putting in the energy.

C_device receives a sum of energy equal to 'e', like I wrote in the equation. 'e' is the sum of all difference of length (by unit of force) of the springs (only the spring which a sphere is moving out/in). I don't need to calculate all 'e' because for a small angle of rotation of the device (example 1°) it is logical the difference is always L1>L2. So 'e' cannot be equal to zero for a small angle so the sum of energy is not conserved, the goal of this device.

Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 28, 2017, 09:41:50 PM
When energy is not conserved what you are being told is that you are NOT including all things.

Energy will ALWAYS be conserved because energy is a tool made by man so that things that are not the same can be compared,, it is a tool,, this very tool is telling you that you do not have all things considered.

Your c_drive needs to move the spring\spheres down from L1 to L2,, it needs to add that energy INTO the system so that it can then take it back OUT,, this is what the tool of energy is telling you.
It is telling you what the c_drive is doing,,it is putting in "e" and also taking "e" out.

O.U. will only be O.U. until the unknown component is identified, studied, and understood, then it will be a known process.

Pass from L1 to L2 = win an energy. My device don't need in theory an external device. So in theory, the sum of energy is not conserved. And it will be the same in practice with an external control device.

"Energy will ALWAYS be conserved " is like the image.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 29, 2017, 04:31:51 AM
The springs don't increase their potential energy, they decrease... I win this energy L1>L2.

Well then,, I guess the only thing left for you to do is to build

No, this theoretical device is there to prove the conservation of energy (like others conservations) is bullshit. I have anothers ideas complex to calculate but easier to build.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 29, 2017, 08:53:39 PM

How can you measure something if the ruler you are using keeps changing its unit of measure?
If you measure and cut this 2X4 to be 24 inches long but when you go to measure that 2X4 the unit called 1 inch is now not the same distance\length,, can you cut both boards to the exact same length so that they can fit in the exact same place?

Energy and its description,, its constraints,, its unit of measure is the same thing as the 1 inch of a tape measure,, it has to stay the same so that you can make sure that the 2X4's are the same.

What you have demonstrated is that you are misinformed on what the law of conservation of energy is.

You measure your device and you come up with a gain of some sort,, the conservative component of ENERGY is then telling you that something ELSE is also happening that you have NOT noticed, included, understood, measured,,, whatever,, there is something else happening that you need to find.

The conservation of gravity,,, magnetic fields,, electric fields,, momentum,, all of those,, what do you think they are saying?  they are saying that if they are NOT conserved,, not the same before and after,,, then something else has happened,, they are telling the observer that they need to find another interaction with the system they are observing beyond those things they have observed.

There is not a "law" that states you can not get free energy,, the law's will help you identify what is paying the cost for YOUR free lunch.

All the laws and formulas can not do one thing,, there is one thing that they can never do,, do you know what that is?
All the laws and formulas can only do one thing,,, do you know what that is?

They can never ASK a question,, the only thing they can do is answer a question.

I explained all the device, I gave all the informations to understand it. I'm not here to discuss about human's believes (laws that you call) but to prove with an example it is possible to create the energy, destroy it. Even the word 'law' is crazy. Noether proves only that a continuous function of a device cannot create an energy, it's all, mine is not continuous.

Where I spoke about change units of measure ...

The energy won by the walls is the energy lost by the springs of the spheres that don't move out/in BUT there is the energy from the springs that the spheres move out/in. Hey ! that's all, nothing more. No friction, no delay due to the mass, volumes are constant

Maybe people don't want to understand, they prefer to believe.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Magluvin on September 30, 2017, 06:46:35 AM

How can you measure something if the ruler you are using keeps changing its unit of measure?
If you measure and cut this 2X4 to be 24 inches long but when you go to measure that 2X4 the unit called 1 inch is now not the same distance\length,, can you cut both boards to the exact same length so that they can fit in the exact same place?

Energy and its description,, its constraints,, its unit of measure is the same thing as the 1 inch of a tape measure,, it has to stay the same so that you can make sure that the 2X4's are the same.

What you have demonstrated is that you are misinformed on what the law of conservation of energy is.

You measure your device and you come up with a gain of some sort,, the conservative component of ENERGY is then telling you that something ELSE is also happening that you have NOT noticed, included, understood, measured,,, whatever,, there is something else happening that you need to find.

The conservation of gravity,,, magnetic fields,, electric fields,, momentum,, all of those,, what do you think they are saying?  they are saying that if they are NOT conserved,, not the same before and after,,, then something else has happened,, they are telling the observer that they need to find another interaction with the system they are observing beyond those things they have observed.

There is not a "law" that states you can not get free energy,, the law's will help you identify what is paying the cost for YOUR free lunch.

All the laws and formulas can not do one thing,, there is one thing that they can never do,, do you know what that is?
All the laws and formulas can only do one thing,,, do you know what that is?

They can never ASK a question,, the only thing they can do is answer a question.

So with all that said, are you done looking for OU? Sounds very much like it.

Mags
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on September 30, 2017, 07:45:10 AM

right here
where ? you don't pointed where I could make a mistake, just write your believes.

Enjoy those 2 free crackers with a slice of cheese,, I don't think they make much of a lunch :)
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Magluvin on October 01, 2017, 12:59:07 AM

Never have really been looking for O.U.,, it does not exist,, free energy and or power to me on the other hand,,,  :)

I use my "creativity" and ask questions,, I try and use the tools available to answer those questions and I keep looking and playing.
Take the cap to cap dump thing,, great example of when there is NOT a good answer of one just being thrown out there so they do not have to admit that there is a problem they have no clue about,, they being any one that is concerned about NOT having an appropriate answer.
The simple math shows that there are not enough charge carriers to support the voltage needed with twice the capacitance,, it is all that simple, the question of what is NOT being used and thrown away in THAT condition,, well there is not an answer for that so far,, I showed with the simple rotary cap that there is a mechanical component that is not used,, and with a cap to cap there is no change in a mechanical process so you might argue that that piece is wasted,, free acceleration with no bounds,, aka instantaneous,, which would make for a lot of heat on the plates themselves,, until they are superconducting kind of plates,,,,,  speaking of which these new super-duper-super-caps,, they can take a lot in really fast without so much of the heat problem so maybe that part is already taken care of,, as far as where the lost energy has gone,,, leaving it still as an unknown.

I have seen and played with to many anomalies,, things doing, for some range, things that they should not,, then trying to ask the correct questions so that that short range can be optimized,,,, that is harder than I think it should be,, for me so far anyway.

Back to the tools,,,  conservation is a fabulous tool to use,, energy is just an agreed upon "magic" number,, ok it comes from agreed upon empirical values,, so the weight of a kg is agreed upon and set,, the length of a meter,,  time,, all these things are set to a uniform measured thing and methods of interaction,,, Energy is useless,, it is only a potential and you hold an infinite amount of energy in the palm of your hand,,, making it do some work is the trick,, making it go from POTENTIAL work into REAL work

Just because a spring may have a changed PE does not mean you can use it unless there is a motion that is caused by the a change in that PE,, an exchange,,,  now sometimes I wonder if the cap issue is in the unbounded acceleration,, f=ma and the acceleration will be in both directions speed up and stop,,, now I am rambling on,,,

But no,, I have not stopped looking :)

First you write....
"Never have really been looking for O.U"

Then lastly you write...
"But no,, I have not stopped looking"

Is it that you have not stopped looking because you were never looking in the first place?

Im putting my ideas for the possible OU by way of speakers together since I last posted on it. Im going to put it in its own thread. Was talking to a guy I had just met at the bank I use. We just struck it up talking Trump. but it got into a myriad of things. He plays guitar and builds his own amps and seems to have a fare knowledge of speakers and ported boxs. So we got into it till the people at the bank said we are closing.. But through that I managed to eureka some ideas on it along the way in the conversion from speaker to circuit.  Im even more convinced than I was before. The guy is an atty and does some pat stuff also. I gave him the plausibility of you cant pat a device that is over 100% eff and he said, that isnt true. So I refereed him to the SAWS document that specifies so. No free energy pat. No claims of tachyons. etc. He got my number and is interested in checking it out. He agrees with me that if it is so that free energy  or overunity really does not exist then why make such statements that most dont even bother to read. Its like this. The saws document is there either for discouraging doing so as to not clog up the system with wasting time on going through them for approval purposes unnecessarily, or it is there to discourage the initiative of trying to get a pat on the real thing. Well thats a conundrum in a way. For the first possible reason why they have the saws doc, it neglects the possibility of 'new' technological advancement beyond what is already known. Well new stuff comes out all the time and who are they to say that new ideas are just still same ole same ole. And if its the second possible reason, then we here know what that reasoning is. So either one is oppressive any way you look at it.

He was also intrigued with the speaker ideas I have presented. He never considered what the eff of a speaker actually was as per its sensitivity rating, as I believe most do not, and he wholeheartedly agreed. The only person I have heard say that they knew something was Vidar. But his claim of the 96db speaker is only 1% eff did not expand to the db level ratings that are closer or even 100% as I did. And then said that it is still no good. Im not buying it till I see it first. So Im going for it. ;) It should be an interesting thread. I am first going to  state that it will be heavily moderated to keep it clean. If someone wants to contribute, then I prefer helpful contributions that are lending toward a positive outcome. I will also make a second thread where arguments against the main thread can be posted so that the main thread stays clean for interested guests and members. So it is not oppression of free speech as long as there is the venue of the second thread to do your do.

Mags

Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: Magluvin on October 01, 2017, 11:10:27 PM
I look because I like looking,, not for anything in specific but just at what happens.

It is in a way like your speaker setup,, that is a huge medium with all sorts of internal and external interactions,,  what or who is to say that if you give to nature just right she won't return that with interest?  If you don't look you will never know,, if you don't see that does not mean something is not there,, so if some person before did not see,,, then what :)

Activ asked me to stop posting in this thread. So this is my last, just to respond to what you replied... Ill make it short.

Yeah  there are a few thing going on in a speaker and how it reacts to its applications. The speaker has to overcome its suspension and move its mass and then move, pressurize and depressurize the air.   P vs Pae are both actual power of electrical input and energy in the air as pressures and expansion. The are not different in how they calculate energy use. So new thread coming.

Mags

Mags
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on October 11, 2017, 08:57:56 AM
I take the device with the whte disk fixed (disk or another shape).

1/ the energy from the walls is constant
2/ the potential energy at start is constant
3/ the potential energy at final is constant
4/ the potential energy of any layer 1, 2, anywhere I take it is constant
5/ the pressure of the layer 1 is not the same than the layer 2, I can choose any layer I want, so the sum of energy cannot be constant.
Title: Re: Increase the potential energy without any energy
Post by: activ25 on October 12, 2017, 07:52:23 AM
Hey ! so easy now !

All the energies are constant except the energy I recover from the line 1 (to move out the line of spheres, not the potential energy of the springs) and the energy to move in the line 2. It is the energy from pressure.

The energy from the walls don't depend of the lines 1 and 2 I choose, it is a constant.
The white object is fixed to the ground, so no energy from it.
The potential energy at start and at final don't depend of the lines 1 and 2 I choose.
The potential energy of the line 1 and 2 are the same (the energy stored in the springs).