[alancalverd]

It looks very much like an elementary text on capillary action. Nothing to do with perpetual motion, just classical hydrostatics.

[perPedes (OP)]

translation is in work. in 3 days you ll get it

[perPedes (OP)]

meanwhile, lets talk about the first part of the calculation, where the miniskus ihas been calculated. do you think its correct ?

[Deecart]

It looks very much like an elementary text on capillary action. Nothing to do with perpetual motion, just classical hydrostatics.

Not only.
There is also the archimedes principle at work.

An thats the point.
When everyone say that Noether theorem states that the total energy should be constant, they forget how they come to that conclusion.
Noether theorem is a theoretical (mathematical) approach using the Lagrangian (kinetic and potential energy involved), it is not a empirical approach of physic.
Why this distinction ?
Because energy is not something particular but something polymorphic.
Saying "energy" doesent mean anything if you dont specify of what kind of energy you are talking about.

Furthermore, and this is what is here interesting (and it is why i can eventually believe the PM showed could work) :
If you have some formula saying that some physical phenomenom produce some value of energy, and some other physical phenomenom produce the same value of energy, this do not mean, in reality, that the conversion of the first phenomenom into the second phenomenom will lead to the transfer of the same value of energy.
You have to verify every conversion...

In this case, the capilarity energy is linked to electromagnetic kind of energy, and the Archimedes principle (buyoancy) is linked to gravity.
If we were using some bessler wheel of such kind, sure we remain in the kinetic area, so the conversion is obvious.
But here we have two kind of energy, so we need to verify the conversion.
I dont remember any experience showing the conversion of capilarity to gravity energy, so i remain open minded.

Mathematic can not give us the answer when different kind of energy are used, it needs to be verified, using... physic (yes thats what physic is, experimentation).



 

[Bored chemist]

Saying "energy" doesent mean anything if you dont specify of what kind of energy you are talking about.

Yes it does.
That's why we use the same name for the different types.

[Bored chemist]

But here we have two kind of energy, so we need to verify the conversion.

And we have.

[Deecart]

And we have.

If you are aware of it, just cite the experience involved.

[Bored chemist]

And we have.

If you are aware of it, just cite the experience involved.

Which particular sort of conversion do you want?
We can start with the conversion of potential to kinetic energy.
Here's a page aimed at explaining it to schoolkids.
https://physicsteacher.blog/2019/03/09/why-does-kinetic-energy-1-2mv2/

[Deecart]

Which particular sort of conversion do you want?
We can start with the conversion of potential to kinetic energy.
Here's a page aimed at explaining it to schoolkids.

We are not schoolkids.
We want the conversion of capillar energy to buoyancy energy (i already explained you that the kinetic potential energy do not apply here).

So what is the experience you claim that you have about it ?

[Bored chemist]

OK, It has been pointed out that capillary forces are electromagnetic in nature.
And that means those of us who paid attention at school  can calculate lots of electrostatic potentials.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential

And those of us who find this joke

shirt.JPG (24.14 kB . 450x402 - viewed 1156 times)
 funny understand that gravitational and electrostatic potentials behave mathematically the same (They both follow an inverse square law).

So it's clear that the way in which energy is transferred and accounted for is the same.
So we know they are equivalent.

That's why, in spite of your protests, it makes sense to talk about energy without specifying the type, because we know that they can be interconverted.

[Bored chemist]

We are not schoolkids.

Are you sure?

[Kryptid]

Noether theorem is a theoretical (mathematical) approach using the Lagrangian (kinetic and potential energy involved), it is not a empirical approach of physic.

Despite sounding similar, theorems and theories aren't the same thing in science. A theorem is a proof that follows logically from its premises. The Pythagorean theorem is probably one of the more famous ones. A theory, on the other hand, is a hypothesis for a phenomenon that has been well-tested to the point where it is believed to be a good explanation for the phenomenon in question. It is possible for a theory to be falsified by future evidence. A theorem, however, is known to be true for any circumstances in which its premises hold true.

Mathematic can not give us the answer when different kind of energy are used

Noether's theorem holds for all kinds of energy. In order for Noether's theorem to not hold, you need a circumstance where time symmetry is violated. A capillary/buoyancy-driven invention like the one talked about here cannot do that, so it cannot violate Noether's theorem.

[Deecart]

Despite sounding similar, theorems and theories aren't the same thing in science

I am glad you agree that the Noether thorem is not a theory, so it only apply to mathematic.
The mathematic of physic of course, so it remains a theorem, not applicable without verifying the physic with experiments.

Noether's theorem holds for all kinds of energy.

It holds for some Lagrangian, thats all.
 

In order for Noether's theorem to not hold, you need a circumstance where time symmetry is violated. A capillary/buoyancy-driven invention like the one talked about here cannot do that, so it cannot violate Noether's theorem.

You cant say anything about the transfer of energy from some kind of phenomenom to another without doing the real experimention.
Mathematic cant say anything about it.

[Kryptid]

The mathematic of physic of course, so it remains a theorem, not applicable without verifying the physic with experiments.

Mathematics applies to real life physics. If I have one apple and add another apple, I will have two apples. That works just as well for Noether's theorem.

You cant say anything about the transfer of energy from some kind of phenomenom to another without doing the real experimention.
Mathematic cant say anything about it.

Yes, yes you can. I don't have to physically add one blue whale to another blue whale to know for a certainty that the answer would be two blue whales.

[Bored chemist]

You cant say anything about the transfer of energy from some kind of phenomenom to another without doing the real experimention.

Yes you can.
It doesn't matter how often, or how loudly, you are wrong about this.
When you have finished, it will still be possible to add energies together.

[Kartazion]

In order for Noether's theorem to not hold, you need a circumstance where time symmetry is violated.

It's so right. The asymmetry gives a different priority to one of the two parties concerned. IOW and within the framework of an asymmetry, the differential of the force is either more important or be less important according to the side of the symmetry studied. I conclude that at the quantum level this rule does not apply and knowing that the breaking of symmetry is effective.

[Kartazion]

You cant say anything about the transfer of energy from some kind of phenomenom to another without doing the real experimention.
Mathematic cant say anything about it.

There is fairness. Dark matter (energy by emc² equivalence) gives different mathematical interpretation. Understanding this transfer of energy from dark matter to baryonic matter is misunderstood.

__________

Axion Dark Matter Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion_Dark_Matter_Experiment
Strong CP problem: The axion was originally postulated to exist as part of the solution to the "strong CP problem". This problem arose from the observation that the strong force holding nuclei together and the weak force making nuclei decay differ in the amount of CP violation in their interactions. Weak interaction was expected to feed into the strong interactions (QCD), yielding appreciable QCD CP violation, but no such violation has been observed to very high accuracy. One solution to this Strong CP Problem ends up introducing a new particle called the axion. If the axion is very light, it interacts so weakly that it would be nearly impossible to detect but would be an ideal dark matter candidate. The ADMX experiment aims to detect this extraordinarily weakly coupled particle.

[perPedes (OP)]

here the calculation in english  sry I have only the link, so please let it in.

<link removed>

[Bored chemist]

here the calculation in english  sry I have only the link, so please let it in.

(link removed)

That does not prove that energy is not conserved.

[perPedes (OP)]

which source do you doubt ?