The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?  (Read 6885 times)

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Look the device at the last message post please.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2016 08:09:59 by chris »


 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
« Reply #1 on: 31/05/2016 21:22:02 »
Aw... I'm really not qualified to comment, but if it's any consulation, I would if I was...
 

Offline impyre

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • View Profile
Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
« Reply #2 on: 01/06/2016 18:48:36 »
The problem with this post thus far (besides language) is that it's unclear what the physical constraints of the system are. It's entirely unclear what you hope to accomplish with this. What are you trying to prove? What's the problem or question? I can math, but I have no idea where your math is coming from. Simply put, I have no clue what's going on with any of this. It seems like it's being presented as a perpetual motion machine, but admittedly I'm unsure. In order to make this more clear you need to:
1) enumerate all axes
2) enumerate all fixed bodies
3) enumerate all discreet mobile bodies
4) enumerate all connections and constraints
5) describe all constraints on motion for mobile bodies relative to their point of connection to the root object (most likely a fixed body)
6) describe significant physical properties of all bodies (are they rigid? flexible?)
(IE: if a swinging arm is connected to a fixed body by a joint, does that joint allow movement in one, two or three axes? Does it slide? Is it degree-limited?)
It might also be helpful to provide a visual model that shows each part labelled as such.
 

Offline impyre

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • View Profile
Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
« Reply #3 on: 02/06/2016 12:33:24 »
There should be a net torque on the disk. If a real model were built then a net torque would be present. The reason for this is that the balls or whatever would disperse the forces amongst each other, but the forces exerted on the container would not be equal at all points. You must consider that some force must be exerted on the balls to keep them in the container and in their present orientation. This force is exerted on them by the container itself; however, since the balls have an attractor they are not exerting force perpendicular to the surface as you suggest. They are exerting the majority of force in the direction of the attractor, which means the container must exert an opposing force to counter this. This opposing force could be thought of to originate from the geometric center of the interface between the balls and the container, but suffice it to say that it will *not* be applied from the axis. The difference vector between where this counter force must be applied and the location of the axis will result in leverage and torque, every time. The container will attempt to find the most stable configuration, which will occur with the center of mass of the balls is as close to the attractor as it can be.
You mentioned it was unstable without a motor, what I said above explains why. Where does this torque come from in your model? It appears to be provided by the red arm. The red arm will apply greater force to whichever side of the container attempts to protrude (the lower side in this case), thus correcting for the torque, but this results in a new torque being transferred down the length of the red arm to the red axis (and to your motor). The motor will have to do work to keep the container from righting itself.
The black arm can be used to generate energy to compensate for the energy spent at the red axis; however, due to mechanical inefficiency not all of the energy will be recovered. The net result is a loss of energy to keep this thing moving. Why spend that energy to move it at all? Does it do something useful besides suck up energy?
 

Offline impyre

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • View Profile
Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
« Reply #4 on: 04/06/2016 18:38:34 »
I hate to be negative, but people have been trying to do this for ages. When I was younger I even tried myself a few times. In my experience (personally as well as dealing with others), the basic laws of physics tend to hold true (especially in a classical sense where they excel in describing and predicting the kind of macroscopic mechanical behavior that you're trying to describe.) This simply cannot be done with classical mechanics. If anyone were to find/create something that tends to generate energy, that energy has to come from somewhere... even if we don't understand the physics of it (and that's being very generous in this case).

However, I think I can safely say that mechanical engineering is not only well understood and practiced across the world every day by many people. It's rooted in time-tested proven principles based on math and physics. This isn't quantum mechanics, it's just a complex mechanical design.

Just because complex mechanics is well-understood and reliable does *not* mean that it's always straightforward or simple. In my own cases (and often times with other people as well), misunderstandings tend to result from incorrect intuition or math that's more complex than it seems on the surface. You might "simplify" your model by making some assumptions, and this is often done in physics to make it easier for students to focus on learning one thing at a time; however, as an engineer you learn that these "negligible" variables that are often ignored for the sake of simplifying problems can sometimes creep up in unexpected or unintuitive ways to create problems.

In short, I think you're chasing a dead end. I'm simply trying to give you some advice here. I think you'll find that a physical model will not function the way you want it to, regardless of how convoluted the design is.
 
The following users thanked this post: Alex Siqueira

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
« Reply #5 on: 01/07/2016 11:03:46 »
Don't hesitate if you have any question ;)

Are you trying to make perpetual motion and create a torque to create motion?

 

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
« Reply #6 on: 01/07/2016 12:32:57 »
My theory about the gravitation needs a device that can create the energy. So I try to find the device that can increase its potential energy alone. I found my last errors, I'm not the best for equation :p but I have ideas. I studied the sum of energy for a small angle of rotation of the wheel, it's easy to see if the energy is constant or not.

I am not sure what you are getting at, gravitation needs a mechanism not a device, and the mechanism is not that of a rigid structure , it is off an ''invisible'' structure(forces)  ,   without ''solidity'' between two masses.

I am not sure if this will help you but let me try to help you even though I am not totally sure of what you are on about.


Between M1  and M2  is a length of space , we will call this length X, it is a linearity , a vector,


From 743690c4744339cc2f49ed916e8bf3db.gif there is not a rigid coupling of matter, but there is a ''rigid'' coupling of forces.

There is two types of force involved, that of gravity (contraction) and the ''force'' that stops the two bodies ''adjoining''(expansion/repulsion/velocity).


In the Universe direction does not exist, only expansion or contraction to a relative point exists.


Now I want you to imagine a rigid ''rod'' between 743690c4744339cc2f49ed916e8bf3db.gif that was ''invisible'' and made of ''energy'' rather than matter.  (Imagine a laser beam). Imagine this rigid ''rod'' always wanted to expand because the likewise ''charges'' are repulsive,


Now imagine in a reverse of this a second ''invisible rod'' but this Rod was always contracting by the attractive force of ''gravity'' .


Now imagine the second ''rod'' had slightly more strength in contraction than the strength of the  expansion ''rod'',


Now imagine the first ''rod'' is then slightly curved by the force of contraction from ''rod'' 2 to create torque on M2 and kinetic energy to create motion in a ''circular'' path.


Not sure if this helps you but that is what I thought after talking to you.


added - I drew it you, just need some maths















 











« Last Edit: 01/07/2016 12:40:37 by Thebox »
 
The following users thanked this post: Alex Siqueira

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
« Reply #7 on: 01/07/2016 22:48:59 »
Ok so you are not talking about gravity, then what are you talking about because it is not clear?


''My theory about the gravitation needs a device that can create the energy''.

What is this even suppose to mean?



 

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
« Reply #8 on: 02/07/2016 10:00:39 »
I started another thread a long time ago to explain that theory: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=57580.0


Maybe with this device:



I have cut the first post from your other thread.

Quote
Hi,

I resumed here a lot of my thoughts, like that you have a brief summary:

1/ Mass don't exist: it is an electromagnetism repulsive force follows by an electromagnetic attraction, the sum is not 0 and the frequency is high
2/ The kinetics energy don't exist, it is the modification of the potential energy stored in the electrostatic matter, like a capacitor when the distance between plates are increasing. When the velocity increases, the shape of capacitors changes so the potential energy too.
3/ Relativity is the time for the system for make its full round, like the clock of a microprocessor
4/ The Dark Matter don't exist because the mass can change, it's the amplitude of the signal
5/ Inertial mass = Gravitationnal mass because it's the same thing: the shape of the capacitor
6/ The formula of gravitation is like the formula of electrostatic and it's logical
7/ Galaxies can repulse themselves because the gravitation is the cosinus of the phase angle
8/ The photon is attracked by gravity because the photon has an electrostatic field



This is also confusing and means very little , at this time I have read lots of your posts and still have no idea of what you are discussing or trying to say.


Can I suggest something to you?


Your posts seem erratic, like you are rushing with your words and sentences , this is creating a problem in your sentence structure.   Approach the next question calmly, do not try to explain your full idea or all the contents involved in your idea, start with a simple premise for argument.


What are you trying to solve?


An example of the an answer to this - I am trying to solve the mechanism for gravity


An example of the answer to this - I am trying to produce free energy

An example of the answer to this- I am trying to produce perpetual motion


An example of the answer to this- I am trying to produce perpetual energy


Your answer should consist of one simple sentence.
 

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
« Reply #9 on: 02/07/2016 13:15:05 »
I am trying to create and destroy energy


Ok, thank you for explaining your idea. 


We can already create ''energy'' and we already can use this ''energy'', we make electricity etc, So how is your machine/device different to Plasma for example which is created ''energy''?


And what do you mean when you say energy , you say kinetic energy does not exist and a few other things, so please explain what you personally mean by energy?

 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
« Reply #10 on: 13/07/2016 23:05:07 »
For ages people have tried to design perpetual motion machines. Some are mechanical. Some are electrical. In all cases once set in motion they all fail due to friction. the ordinary gyroscope slows due to friction and energy must be applied to keep it going. The ring laser gyro is an amazing device since it has no moving physical parts. It is almost like a perpetual motion machine but over time it needs additional electrical energy to keep it going.
   The internet is full of people trying to sell all sorts of machines but in the end they all fail. Yet it is fun for many people to try to sell others on such things. Water and a pill will run your car engine for only a few pennies a week. People are still buying the pills and damaging their cars. It is funny but sad.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
« Reply #11 on: 14/07/2016 21:50:25 »
The guy who made the bird that dips in water made a lot of money with his invention. You still need to supply the water. It is sort of a perpetual motion machine. The love lamp with the stuff that goes up and down in perpetual motion made a lot of money but you still need a source of heat at the bottom of the lamp. The greatest minds have produced many amazing perpetual motion machines but in all cases unless someone feeds them with some energy, they will come to a halt.
   As I see it the universe itself is a perpetual motion machine. It will oscillate forever from minimum size to maximum size. No energy is lost. It is merely redistributed. Yet who can make such a machine? then we must move to religion and philosophy for possible answers.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: How to increase a potential energy without energy
« Reply #12 on: 24/08/2016 13:32:21 »
Look the device at the last message post please.
Where is this "last message post" that you're referring to? Writing as if your reader should know where things like that are will hinder those trying to help you such as myself in this case. Let me know what to read and where to find it and I'll let you know what I think ... if you're interested in what I think that is?
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 341
  • Thanked: 51 times
    • View Profile
Re: How to increase a potential energy without energy
« Reply #13 on: 03/09/2016 17:15:24 »
You cannot remove entropy from mass.
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 341
  • Thanked: 51 times
    • View Profile
Re: How to increase a potential energy without energy
« Reply #14 on: 08/09/2016 16:57:00 »
LB7

  You are adding outside force and all mechanical processes create entropy. To create true perpetual motion you have to deny entropy. You cannot load and unload a spring without molecular friction. Entropy will win out. You are not including all of the forces used.

 

Offline ProjectSailor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
« Reply #15 on: 01/11/2016 10:07:03 »
Okay... to answer the question can potential energy be increased without supplying energy.. yes.. by lowering the reference energy point.

DONE.

If you measure gravitational potential energy to sea level, (gh) then measure it to a point to below sea level (gh+h) and you have increased the potential energy without supplying energy.

Other than that.. no. (although the odd behaviour of capilliary action does seem to do that)
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
« Reply #16 on: 12/11/2016 14:36:48 »
Without studying all the details of your equations, you start with some motion and this motion converts into the motion of other things and then returns to the original motion. It looks like you have conceived of a different form of a pendulum. The pendulum such as a weight on a string starts at potential energy at a high point. As the weight comes down to a lower level, potential energy turns into the motion of kinetic energy at maximum speed. Then the pendulum rises up again and creates potential energy from kinetic energy. And for a low friction pendulum, this can go on for quite a long time.
   So yes potential energy can be increased without supplying new energy but something must start the potential energy in the first place.
  If you want to increase the potential energy above the existing energy level, this becomes quite difficult. In electrical circuits you can take a twelve volt battery and get 10,000 volts out of it. But the twelve volts operates at a large current whereas the 10,000 volts has a very small current. We are always limited by the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy in = energy out plus heat loss.
  So your calculations can be quite correct as long as energy in equals energy out assuming the friction is very small in the short term.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
« Reply #17 on: 12/11/2016 22:04:50 »
  As I look at your diagram I assume that it could be interpreted as water on the ocean at the equator. As the Earth spins on its axis it could appear that the water would be moving up a hill as the Earth rotates and then flowing back. Yet the gravitational force on the water does not change and the water does not flow backwards. We could assume a very small centrifugal force but it is so tiny.
   If the earth spun very fast then we might get some motion and a possible flow of the water.
This would help to generate heat and the planet would slow.
 

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
« Reply #18 on: 19/11/2016 08:21:01 »
I think the white disk must turn, like that the springs keep the orientation of the force. And the law must be in square not linear:



The length (L1+L2)/2 =  L3 and with a linear law the sum of energy is constant. With a square law like 1/dē it is not possible.



from mpmath import *
mp.dps = 20

N=mpf("200")
l=mpf("0")
l2=mpf("0")
i=mpf("0")
j=mpf("0")
x=mpf("0")
y=mpf("0")
a=mpf("0")
b=mpf("4")
R=mpf("1")
nb=0

a1=0
b1=4-4/mp.sqrt(2)


for i in range(0,N):
  x=-mpf("1")+i/N*mpf("2")
  for j in range(0,N):
    y=mpf("4")-mpf("1")+j/N*mpf("2")
    if((x-a)**2+(y-b)**2<R**2):
      a2=1
      b2=y-a2*x
      xi=(b2-b1)/(a1-a2)
      yi=a1*xi+b1
      d=mp.sqrt((x-xi)**2+(y-yi)**2)
      l+=(d)**2
      nb+=1
      l2+=y**2
     

print l/nb
print l2/nb
« Last Edit: 19/11/2016 15:43:14 by LB7 »
 

Offline Alex Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
« Reply #19 on: 19/11/2016 14:48:12 »
Without studying all the details of your equations, you start with some motion and this motion converts into the motion of other things and then returns to the original motion. It looks like you have conceived of a different form of a pendulum. The pendulum such as a weight on a string starts at potential energy at a high point. As the weight comes down to a lower level, potential energy turns into the motion of kinetic energy at maximum speed. Then the pendulum rises up again and creates potential energy from kinetic energy. And for a low friction pendulum, this can go on for quite a long time.
   So yes potential energy can be increased without supplying new energy but something must start the potential energy in the first place.
  If you want to increase the potential energy above the existing energy level, this becomes quite difficult. In electrical circuits you can take a twelve volt battery and get 10,000 volts out of it. But the twelve volts operates at a large current whereas the 10,000 volts has a very small current. We are always limited by the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy in = energy out plus heat loss.
  So your calculations can be quite correct as long as energy in equals energy out assuming the friction is very small in the short term.

 While is true to our assumptions that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and considering your theories about that world of C that you mentioned once. I guess both you and I accept, that this world is constant submited to a world constructed and based on knectic energy, and that is not much futher into the future, or maybe secretly even happening now, were humanity will learn that our surrowndings despise the elements, air, water, fire, earth, that the blackground of all this, is knetic energy and with a contant unlimited potential, waiting to be harvest...
  I'm sugesting technolodge that operate within electric and magnetic field, not for convert motion into energy, instead one that causes field, that produce an effect that for the eyes of the medium would be consider as displacement/dilatation, resulting vitual mass, directly affecting gravity, such device would than be in coorelation with space and earth, acting as a bridge, and than harves the knetic energy into electrical...
  Prety much the same principle behind artificial gravity engines on vaccum of space, but on this scenario, a device producing electromagnetic and eletrical fields that are simulating mass, like a bubble of emptiness, and such area would be constantly recieving the whole weight of the medium surronding it, such as air, or submersed into a tank full of water....
 Is more like a field to liberate the meanings to harves the gravity acting over earth, the device nees simple to be able to simulate mass (where it is not) by effect, creating a virtual expansion on the medium where the mass should be existing, since there (diferent from a solid rock), the enviroment, air or water, would not be able to rest cause there would not be walls where to rest... Resulting in a constant falling of gravitational pull against something that is there (device) untotchable at the center, gravity would than keep falling against this virtual (proportional mass field surrounding it), and susequentily seting the enviroment (gas/liquid) into spiral motion, and we would be harvesting this energy, the energy produced on the enviroment by the "constant" action of gravity...
  In a few words I sugesting a device that produces a field that simulates mass, and we would be harvesting the "universeal constant/gravity" not on the device for the same reasons we cannot create energy on earth from nothing, but if where to create a bridge, a secund point of reference for gravity, we could insert it into a psysical medium as gas or liquid, and submit this medium to this "massive displacement bubble of emptiness", a momentum, to force it to act as the sppinign eye of a huricane or a spiral plate...

 Exacly like we already do with wind and water, althoug instead of harvest the small energy (already a consequence) of gravity on earth, we would step bac one frame between the knetic otion and the electrical conversion, and producing virtuall mass, we would theoretical constantly have the medium falling towards that displacement as it is constant falling towards a rock, allowing us to scape from oceans and atmosphere to much small places, self contained areas...

 Is like if on space there was filled with oxigen or water, and than we would be able to harvest the infinit power flow of liquid that would be happening at the edge of the atmosphere, as its happening with gases that form winds... The device would simulate a small universe where the emptiness is a gas or liquid, and the object on the center has more proportional mass than its actuall surfaces, forcing the medium to sppin as it fall towards that displacement, indeed much like a massive bubble of emptyness, this constant free fall spiral, would have as much as gravity as the earth is recieving, and the motion would have to be limited to not expand the actual tank or boil the liquid into gas...
 If is to visualize such experiment, think about earths inner core, now think about universe and gravity, now simple decide to produce a small universe, you would not have to need to produce gravity, you already have the freefall of earth surface itself, all you need to do now, is simulate a universe that is opossit to our, where universe is filled with physcal medium, and the earth is the thing that is empty, altough, considering that on this universe earth would have being the one producing mass, and there would be the medium, like on a pull, constantly submiting this virtual center to fall towards wherever is there,,, In a short version, the "earth" would be the one expanding and the medium would be the one compressing "due our actuall existing gravity, earths gravity", this would theoreticaly simulates a scenario where we become able to submit the medium to a conflict between inner expansion causing displacement and constant compression of the enviroment over this, as result forcing the medium t convert pressure into acceleration, most likely concentrating all the energy on the middle of the container on the form of a horizontal plate where the medium would gathered the spiral flow, we would than do what we are already doing and harvest the knetic energy into electrical, the only difference is that we would be in the control of the acceleration of the enviroment itself...
 

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
« Reply #20 on: 20/11/2016 07:04:44 »
I added some informations in the program even it is logical that with a square law the energy can't be constant. The result is 16.5 vs 16.25 for the potential energy.



from mpmath import *
mp.dps = 30        #number of decimal digits of precision

N=mpf("2000")     #number of dots for a line
l=mpf("0")            #length for the square law
l2=mpf("0")          #length for linear law
i=mpf("0")            #for loop
j=mpf("0")            #for loop
x=mpf("0")             #coordonate of a dot at the axis x
y=mpf("0")           #same for y
a=mpf("0")             #first line y=ax+b
b=mpf("4")
a1=mpf("0")         #second line y=a1x+b1
b1=mpf("0")
R=mpf("1")          #radius of the circle
nb=0                   #number of dots counted
d=mpf("0")
_1=mpf("1")
_4=mpf("4")

b1=_4-_4/mp.sqrt(2)


for i in range(0,N):
  x=-mpf("1")+i/N*mpf("2")
  for j in range(0,N):
    y=mpf("4")-mpf("1")+j/N*mpf("2")
    if((x-a)**2+(y-b)**2<R**2):      #if (x,y) is in the circle
      a2=_1
      b2=y-a2*x
      xi=(b2-b1)/(a1-a2)
      yi=a1*xi+b1
      d=mp.sqrt((x-xi)**2+(y-yi)**2)   #length of a spring
      l+=(d)**2
      nb+=1
      l2+=y**2
     

print l/nb
print l2/nb

To rotate the white disk, some spheres can move out the container and in the same some others spheres can move in:

« Last Edit: 20/11/2016 20:27:25 by LB7 »
 

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
« Reply #21 on: 21/11/2016 19:15:08 »
In my last image, I need to have an additional layer of spheres+springs. I move out one layer of spheres+springs and I move in one layer of spheres+springs. In one direction I destroy the energy in the other direction I create the energy. The white disk rotates and I move in/out the spheres+springs in the same time.
 

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
« Reply #22 on: 22/11/2016 21:35:17 »
Because there is no mass and no friction and like the volume is constant I can admit the pressure don't change because I move out/in the spheres in the area because the white disk rotates around the pink dot. I can study the pressure like it is a static device.
 

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
« Reply #23 on: 23/11/2016 18:39:16 »
I explain the move in/out action:





These actions are done in the same time and the white disk rotates. I win the potential energy from the springs because the lengths are lower at the image2 compared to the image1

« Last Edit: 23/11/2016 19:09:27 by LB7 »
 

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
« Reply #24 on: 27/11/2016 20:47:53 »
I don't find my error, maybe there is not :)

I can resume the logic:

Whitout the white disk

At start, I have the potential energy X
Rotate the walls give me the energy W
At final, I have the potential energy , with Y<X and X=W+Y

With the white disk and without move in/out the blue spheres

At start, I have the potential energy X-d, with d the potential energy lost because there is the white disk (where the white disk is there is no springs)
Rotate the walls give me the energy W
At final, I have the potential energy , with Y-d and X-d=W+Y-d

The energy is well constant

Now, I move in/out the blue spheres from the container, it is the same case than before, except that I win the length from the springs I move out/in

It is like the path change the result.



Note : I supposed the springs are always and everywhere with an angle like the walls.
« Last Edit: 28/11/2016 09:59:36 by LB7 »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
« Reply #24 on: 27/11/2016 20:47:53 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums