Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Yahya A.Sharif on 02/10/2022 08:06:39
-
Some special system can break the law of conservation of energy.
This magnetic system generates free energy :
In the picture in 1 there is a vertical force between the magnet and the piece of iron.
In 2 I use very small force to move the piece of iron Horizontally. There is not a resistance force, the force between the neodymium magnet and the piece of iron is vertical.
In 3 I also use small force to take away the piece of iron from the neodymium magnet because the area between the the piece of iron and the neodymium magnet is small so the vertical force is small.
In 4 I move the piece iron again horizontally. The force is small because it is horizontal.
In 5 the The neodymium magnet will attract the piece of iron. The area in 5 is big. So the force is big.
In 2,3,4 I use small force to move the piece of iron but in 5 I get very big force by the neodymium magnet. Because the area in 5 is big.
I start again from position 1, I use small force to move the piece of iron horizontally as in position 2 and get bigger force in position 5
I repeat this to exert a small force to get a bigger force. The vertical distance I lift the the piece of iron is the same as the horizontal distance I move the piece of iron away from the neodymium magnet.If the distances are equal and I exert force less than I get then I exert work less than I get this result in free energy by the system.
-
The horizontal force is remarkably tiny if you push a piece of iron on a surface with small friction and put the neodymium magnet below. I tried it by putting tiny balls on glass. The piece of iron is on the balls to get small friction. I could push the piece of iron with small fractions of 1 N.
The vertical force in case of small area is also obviously smaller than the force in case of a bigger area. You can easily pull the piece of iron and the neodymium magnet apart when they are at edges.
The neodymium magnet is a very strong type of magnet which makes it practical for the system.
-
Some special system can break the law of conservation of energy.
They really can't.
This magnetic system generates free energy
It really doesn't.
-
Confusion about force and energy is rampant among "free energy" enthusiasts. A force never produces energy on it's own: to produce energy a force needs to move along a path and the work required to move the force is always equal to or greater than the net system production. Neither magnets nor gravity can ever produce free energy.
-
Neither magnets nor gravity can ever produce free energy.
Yes it's sure. The free energy is related to the thermodynamic system.
But the accumulation of energy by gravity is however possible. Further the magnetic energy is there with the electrostatic potential energy which are related by Maxwell's equations.
[1] A gravity battery is a type of energy storage device that stores gravitational energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_battery
I imagine that my answer brings nothing special, but I'm so bored on the scientific forums so I speak for nothing to pass the time on what should be subjects going in the direction of the perfection of the standard model without each time making new discoveries which are not.
-
Let's keep in mind that a pulley system can allow you to lift a weight using less force than trying to lift the weight by itself. However, energy and force aren't the same. A smaller force acting over a longer period of time can expend the same amount of energy as a larger force acting over a shorter period of time. I believe something similar may be happening with your system. Noether's theorem won't allow it to produce net energy.
-
Some special system can break the law of conservation of energy.
Not really.
I don't see much point to reading further.
-
On the day of a general election, in my undergraduate epoch, a classical physics lecturer stated "As you know, Conservative forces do no work." There was a small riot.
Our correspondent here think he is a closet Tory but is actually Laboring to lift the iron, whereupon the evil capitalist magnate snatches the fruits of his work back again.
-
In the picture in 1 there is a vertical force between the magnet and the piece of iron.
I dont see any picture in the .jpg, so i cant understand anything you are talking about.
I am surprised that some other are doing some comment, so they probably see something... or perhaps are used about saying nothing about nothing.
-
I dont see any picture in the .jpg, so i cant understand anything you are talking about.
I am surprised that some other are doing some comment, so they probably see something... or perhaps are used about saying nothing about nothing.
Of that post, this bit
I dont see any picture in the .jpg
was informative.
-
This is the first obvious error.
In 2 I use very small force to move the piece of iron Horizontally. There is not a resistance force,
-
I dont see any picture in the .jpg
Might be an error with your browser. I can see the image just fine.
-
Confusion about force and energy is rampant among "free energy" enthusiasts. A force never produces energy on it's own: to produce energy a force needs to move along a path and the work required to move the force is always equal to or greater than the net system production. Neither magnets nor gravity can ever produce free energy.
I fully agree that there is no free energy in EM system.
However, Why are you so sure that gravity can't produce free energy?
Don't you agree that Tidal heating could come free of charge?
As an example
Take a planet with at least two moons at different radius and orbital velocity.
Even if one moon is fully locked with the spin of the planet, the other one will have to contribute some tidal heat energy.
Therefore, under some limitations, it is possible to extract free energy from gravity.
-
it is possible to extract free energy from gravity.
No no no. No energy can be extracted from gravity itself.
-
Don't you agree that Tidal heating could come free of charge?
That comes at the expense of the motion of the moon and earth.
It will run out.
-
Don't you agree that Tidal heating could come free of charge?
That comes at the expense of the motion of the moon and earth.
It will run out.
Can we prove it?
Let's use the Earth moon system as an example
1. We all know that the moon contributes tidal heat to earth.
You can claim that due to this tidal heat energy, the moon is drifting outwards.
Now can we set the calculation to prove that all the tidal energy had been transformed to the drifting motion of the moon?
2. Let's assume that the moon is fully locked withthe earth and it can't contribute any tidal energy.
Do you think that under this understanding the moon would keep its orbital radius "forever"?
-
Noether's theorem won't allow it to produce net energy.
Noether's theorem is 100% correct when it comes to force or energy that isn't free.
For example, EM energy can't be free of charge.
We must invest heat or work to get that energy
However, gravity is for free. It is there due to mass.
Therefore, as there is no loos of mass due to the impact of gravity motion (tidal heat), that tidal energy should be considered as free energy (with or without the drifting motion of the moon).
Please also don't forget that when the moon is drifting outwards, it decreases its velocity and its kinetic energy, but in the same token it increases its potential energy.
So we might claim that there is no difference in the total energy.
-
Hi Dave,
Still in the habit of making up nonsense facts and not actually looking at the numbers I see.
Can we prove it?
Noether's theorem proves it. If you don't consider that a proof, then no, I apparently cannot prove it to you.
1. We all know that the moon contributes tidal heat to earth.
It does not. The energy comes from the spin of Earth. The moon has long since become tide locked and has no more energy itself to contribute. The cumulative drain of energy into the tides has slowed Earth's spin to 24 hours from under 10 hours long ago.
You can claim that due to this tidal heat energy, the moon is drifting outwards.
Heat isn't what pushes the moon outward. Any energy expended putting the moon into a higher energy orbit (about 3% of the spin energy) does not manifest as heat. Only the remaining 97% does.
Now can we set the calculation to prove that all the tidal energy had been transformed to the drifting motion of the moon?
The mathematics says this isn't so. Only 3% currently goes there. So says the arithmetic if you compare the orbital energy added to the moon to the spin energy subtracted from Earth each century.
Let's assume that the moon is fully locked with the earth and it can't contribute any tidal energy.
That would be the Earth locked with the moon. The moon is already locked with Earth.
Do you think that under this understanding the moon would keep its orbital radius "forever"?
Energy still radiates away. Earth would still spin (every ~1400 hours), so that energy would still bleed away via tides. That energy loss to the locked system would draw the moon in closer and actually speed up the Earth's spin, which seems counter intuitive, but the total energy is still going down at the rate of heat loss from the continued tides.
Even in the absence of tides, energy is radiated away by other means, and the orbit will eventually decay just like two neutron stars spiraling into each other, but slower.
For example, EM energy can't
However, gravity is for free.
One last time: Gravity isn't energy. It has different units.
How much gravity energy does a million kg have? There's no answer to that because gravity doesn't have energy. Gravity is just the means by which objects interact and exchange other forms of energy, which in this case is the kinetic energy of Earth's spin.
Please also don't forget that when the moon is drifting outwards, it decrease its velocity and its kinetic energy, but it increase its potential energy.
Not in equal amounts.
So we might claim that there is no difference in the total energy.
The claim would be wrong, but that apparently doesn't stop you from claiming it.
-
However, gravity is for free. It is there due to mass.
Therefore, as there is no loos of mass due to the impact of gravity motion (tidal heat), that tidal energy should be considered as free energy
Nonsense.
If you tie a rope to a rock, then push the rock off a cliff then you can use the rope to turn the shaft of a generator and get electricity.
But you can only do it once.
After that you have to lift the rock back up and that takes exactly the same energy as you could get from it falling.
There's nothing magical about gravity.
Noether's theorem doesn't distinguish it.
And that's because reality doesn't distinguish it.
Potential energy is potential energy.
You need to go away again and try learning some science.
-
.
The energy comes from the spin of Earth. The moon has long since become tide locked and has no more energy itself to contribute. The cumulative drain of energy into the tides has slowed Earth's spin to 24 hours from under 10 hours long ago.
Thanks
So it is all about earth spin.
Hence, when the earth spin would decrease and be fully locked with the orbital motion of the moon, the earth tidal heat would be zero,.
That is fully clear for earth system with one moon
However, if there was one more moon, then by definition the Earth spin can't be locked with two moons as they orbit at different velocities.
Hence, one of them must contribute tidal heat to earth.
Gravity isn't energy. It has different units.
How much gravity energy does a million kg have? There's no answer to that because gravity doesn't have energy. Gravity is just the means by which objects interact and exchange other forms of energy, which in this case is the kinetic energy of Earth's spin.
Yes, I fully agree that gravity isn't energy, it is a force,
However, force can do work and work means energy.
You just confirmed that the radius is not effected by the tidal heat.
Hence, as the tidal heat does not change the radius or the mass why can't we claim that the tidal heat does not reduce the gravity force?
So, if we get a tidal heat without any impact on the gravity force, why can't we consider that tidal heat as a free heat due to gravity force?
-
Dave, all of this has already been explained to you in older threads of yours that have been locked. Talking about them here is like evading the lock. Please don't bring that up here unless you want your posting privileges revoked. If you want to talk about Yahya's device specifically, then that would be okay.
-
However, if there was one more moon, then by definition the Earth spin can't be locked with two moons as they orbit at different velocities.
Yes it can, because their velocities would change and they would end up locked to each other.
-
Yes it can, because their velocities would change and they would end up locked to each other.
And I'm pretty sure the point is moot anyway, since two moons changing their orbital speed and radius due to tidal effects would approach the same orbit over time and collide with each other. Then you'd have one moon.
-
And I'm pretty sure the point is moot anyway, since two moons changing their orbital speed and radius due to tidal effects would approach the same orbit over time and collide with each other. Then you'd have one moon.
Actually they'd draw apart. If we're locked with a large moon, a moon orbiting further out would slowly drift further away, stealing orbital energy from the locked pair. If the 2nd moon orbited closer, its orbit would decay, yielding its energy to the locked pair, eventually colliding with the primary.
Hence, when the earth spin would decrease and be fully locked with the orbital motion of the moon, the earth tidal heat would be zero.
It would still be spinning relative to the sun, so the heat would not be zero. Solar tides are quite significant and responsible for spring tides ever 2 weeks.
Hence, one of them must contribute tidal heat to earth.
That's true. It is the energy of the spin of the locked pair that is driving that heat. The orbit of the not-locked moon also contributes energy to that heat, but only if it orbits closer than the moon with which the Earth is locked. See just above for that.
Gravity isn't energy. It has different units.
Yes, I fully agree that gravity isn't energy, it is a force
No it isn't. How much force (in Newtons) does a million kg exert? Gravity isn't measured in Newtons. It's measured either in potential or the derrivative of potential, which is acceleration. A million kg has neither of those either. That's measured in units of mass. But I can specify the gravitational potential at Earth's surface, and I can specify the gravitational acceleration there. I cannot specify the energy at Earth's surface any more than I can specify the force at Earth's surface.
However, force can do work and work means energy.
A rock puts a continuous million newtons of force on Earth. How much energy is delivered to Earth (or the rock) by this continuous force? No, force is not energy. Force times distance is energy, also commonly known as work.
You just confirmed that the radius is not effected by the tidal heat.
I don't recall saying anything like that. I can heat up a metal ball and its radius will get larger, so radius is effected by heat, be it from tides or any other source.
Hence, as the tidal heat does not change the radius or the mass why can't we claim that the tidal heat does not reduce the gravity force?
Because the force between a pair of objects has to do with the mass of those objects and their separation, neither of which is particularly altered by heating up one of the objects.
So, if we get a tidal heat without any impact on the gravity force, why can't we consider that tidal heat as a free heat due to gravity force?
Of course you're just being deliberately dumb here since this has already been explained. The energy isn't free since it comes from rotation (kinetic) energy. That KE has to run out eventually. As BC says, you can't do it twice. The system is ever in a lower total energy state than it was yesterday. The battery will eventually be exhausted, leaving one object, still spinning, but with nowhere to dissipate the energy further.
-
Gravity isn't measured in Newtons. It's measured either in potential or the derrivative of potential, which is acceleration. A million kg has neither of those either. That's measured in units of mass. But I can specify the gravitational potential at Earth's surface, and I can specify the gravitational acceleration there. I cannot specify the energy at Earth's surface any more than I can specify the force at Earth's surface.
Let's assume that we could shut down the gravity force that works on between the Earth/solar system to the moon.
Do you agree that without gravity force, The moon would keep its current momentum and move in its current velocity in a direct line?
Let's also assume that we could place on the moon a mighty rocket system that could bend the direction of the moon.
Can you advice what is the energy in Newtons that is needed for this rocket system to bend the moon movement direction in just one degree?
Try to calculate the Energy for the rocket system that is needed to accomplish one full orbital cycle.
So as the gravity can bend the motion of the moon without any rocket, why can't we agree that the gravity contributes same energy in Newtons that would be needed for this rocket system to do the same work?
-
If you want to talk about Yahya's device specifically, then that would be okay.
I have an excellent advice to Yahya.
If you tie a rope to a rock, then push the rock off a cliff then you can use the rope to turn the shaft of a generator and get electricity.
But you can only do it once.
After that you have to lift the rock back up and that takes exactly the same energy as you could get from it falling.
There's nothing magical .
Let's assume that this rock is orbiting around the Earth and use electrical cable instead of the rope.
This electrical cable would cross the magnet that Yahya had offered..
Let's also ignore all the frictions due to the air.
So don't you agree that we could get almost unlimited electrical energy for free?
-
Dave, all of this has already been explained to you in older threads of yours that have been locked. Talking about them here is like evading the lock. Please don't bring that up here unless you want your posting privileges revoked.
So don't you agree that we could get almost unlimited electrical energy for free?
All that would do is drain the rock's orbital kinetic energy for whatever application you end up using the energy for, causing the rock's orbit to decay. It isn't creating energy out of nothing.
-
...
Try to calculate the Energy for the rocket system that is needed to accomplish one full orbital cycle.
So as the gravity can bend the motion of the moon without any rocket, why can't we agree that the gravity contributes same energy in Newtons that would be needed for this rocket system to do the same work?
Imagine an astronaut alone in their spacesuit orbiting Earth (normal Earth, with mass curving spacetime).
They will feel weightless.
Now put them out in interstellar space away from any noticeable gravity, and have them take the exact same path as that orbit - with your rocket idea.
They will feel the acceleration from the rocket.
Take a look at what "freefall" means. Your equivalence (gravity vs rocket) is false.
-
...
Try to calculate the Energy for the rocket system that is needed to accomplish one full orbital cycle.
So as the gravity can bend the motion of the moon without any rocket, why can't we agree that the gravity contributes same energy in Newtons that would be needed for this rocket system to do the same work?
Imagine an astronaut alone in their spacesuit orbiting Earth (normal Earth, with mass curving spacetime).
They will feel weightless.
Now put them out in interstellar space away from any noticeable gravity, and have them take the exact same path as that orbit - with your rocket idea.
They will feel the acceleration from the rocket.
Yes, all the above is correct
Take a look at what "free fall" means. Your equivalence (gravity vs rocket) is false.
the Astronaut "Feel" doesn't mean that there is no acceleration.
Our body had been developed to feel external forces.
Therefore, our astronaut can feel the acceleration due to the rocket energy.
However, gravity works equally on every cell in the astronaut' body.
Therefore, he can't feel the acceleration due to the gravity energy as he falls in.
Actually, even if he was under the gravity impact of a S....SMBH he won't feel any acceleration as long as each cell in his body would be exactly under the same gravity force.
Theoretically, if we could split the rocket energy to work equally on each cell of that astronaut body, he also won't feel the acceleration impact of the rocket.
Therefore, under this limitation, if this astronaut accelerates its velocity due to gravity energy or rocket energy, he won't feel any acceleration - as long as he closes his eyes and does not collide with anything.
Did you have the chance to read the Newton's second law of motion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
Newton's second law of motion states that the rate of change of a body's momentum is equal to the net force acting on it. Momentum depends on the frame of reference, but in any inertial frame it is a conserved quantity, meaning that if a closed system is not affected by external forces, its total linear momentum does not change.
Therefore, "in any inertial frame it is a conserved quantity, meaning that if a closed system is not affected by external forces, its total linear momentum does not change".
Therefore, if the Astronaut was not effected by any external forces/energy it is expected that "its total linear momentum does not change"
However, the gravity bends its linear momentum.
Therefore, based on Newton's second law of motion, that astronaut must get external force/energy - even if it is called gravity, and he does't feel it.
Hence, do you finally agree that in order to change the linear momentum of any object/astronaut - by gravity or by rocket - that force must come with real energy.
So don't you agree that we could get almost unlimited electrical energy for free?
All that would do is drain the rock's orbital kinetic energy for whatever application you end up using the energy for, causing the rock's orbit to decay. It isn't creating energy out of nothing.
What do you mean by "rock's orbit to decay"
If you mean that the orbital radius would be shorter, than by definition in order to keep the orbital motion its orbital velocity should be increased.
Increasing the orbital velocity means increasing in the orbital kinetic energy and the orbital momentum.
Do you agree that there is a contrediction between "rock's orbit to decay" to "drain the rock's orbital kinetic energy"
Now, let's assume that we would connect the electrical wire to the moon instead of that rock.
Do you claim that the moon's orbit would also be decay and the moon would be drifted inwards, although we know that the moon constantly drifts outwards and decreasing its orbital momentum?
-
I dont see any picture in the .jpg, so i cant understand anything you are talking about.
I am surprised that some other are doing some comment, so they probably see something... or perhaps are used about saying nothing about nothing.
Of that post, this bit
Quote from: Deecart on 03/10/2022 19:55:49
I dont see any picture in the .jpg
was informative.
Your logic seems to be physical only. How do you cope?
-
2^n is a powerfully dangerous equation here.
when 2^n where n=diameter of a circle, more dangerous.
using magnets within a sphere similar, is the most dangerous.
you simply have to find the right exchange sizing's by magnet size and power.
think about a sphere and a+b=c+b=phi where b=1.
1 is our gap if a and c are opposite facing magnets. close the gap to create vibrations.
vibration is will to move. the rest is in the binary coding (north and south) of how you face the magnets.
we have two mass systems, allowing 2 energy systems, and a total energy.
meaning we can use two off zero interaction points to never touch zero, but still create free energy.
I think the old alchemists used lodestone (magnetic properties)
I would walk with caution on this subject, as matter to antimatter near total mutual destruction could be an outcome on a grand scale.
People act as if we have science ironed out. We don't. There may be more exceptions than anticipated.
-
Your logic seems to be physical only. How do you cope?
Easy; It only "seems" that way to you.
-
Do you agree that there is a contrediction between "rock's orbit to decay" to "drain the rock's orbital kinetic energy"
No. Although the orbital velocity increases, the total energy decreases. The sum "kinetic energy + potential energy" goes down. I'm pretty sure I've already told you about this.
Now, let's assume that we would connect the electrical wire to the moon instead of that rock.
Do you claim that the moon's orbit would also be decay and the moon would be drifted inwards, although we know that the moon constantly drifts outwards and decreasing its orbital momentum?
The energy drained by a single wire probably wouldn't be as great as the energy gain through tidal interactions with the Earth. Most likely, the wire would just cause the Earth's rotational energy to be drained a bit faster than usual. There is no net creation of energy. But this has been explained to you ad nauseum...
-
It seems he's trying to rationalize atoms using vibrations as sound energy released (2014 showed artificial atoms having a sound interaction) and the unknown elements of cosmological expansions in magnetic form.
There's only two forms that can possibly come close. 2^n with spheres (dangerous at n=d=9)
and a line interpretation.
-
It seems he's trying to rationalize atoms using vibrations as sound energy released (2014 showed artificial atoms having a sound interaction) and the unknown elements of cosmological expansions in magnetic form.
There's only two forms that can possibly come close. 2^n with spheres (dangerous at n=d=9)
and a line interpretation.
I don't see the relevance. Yahya is talking about magnetism.
-
he's talking about free energy.
two possible free energy systems might get close.
both use a magnet's pole alignment as a force mechanism.
turning it into energy.
one is spherical. one is based on a circle as a infinite ray route. we can retravel a circle. its a sign of perpetuality. if we don't assume perpetuality cannot exist. remember, a scientist would rather ask what if, then make decided statements.
I'm not great with my words. but it seems like 2^n and n=diameter would be a near perfect example of something that would seek comfort.
n^3 where n=diameter provided. that's with circles though.
diameter=1 uses 2 in 2d, 3 in 3d
diameter=2 uses 4 in 2d, 6 in 3d
diameter=3 uses 8 in 2d, 12 in 3d
diameter=4 uses 16 in 2d, 24 in 3d
diameter=5 uses 32 in 2d, 48 in 3d
diameter=6 uses 64 in 2d, 96 in 3d
diameter=7 uses 128 in 2d, 192 in 3d
diameter=8 uses 256 in 2d, 384 in 3d
diameter=9 uses 512 in 2d, 768 in 3d
-
It looks like this is getting dragged off topic by Dave and KiltedWeirdo.
Can we please restrict discussion to Yayha's device specifically? If you wish to discuss something else, please start your own threads.
-
This is the first obvious error.
In 2 I use very small force to move the piece of iron Horizontally. There is not a resistance force,
This it is true. It is possible to rotate a toy motor with little force. It consists of iron and a permanent magnet, the circuit is open and the magnets are separated.
-
Magnetism, like gravity is a conservative field.
You only get back what you put in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_vector_field
It's true that moving a piece of iron away from a magnet sideways may take less force but, you need to move it further so the work done (the product of the force and the distance) is the same.
It's also very hard to estimate forces when you pull and push things by hand.
You need some sort of measuring equipment.
It doesn't need to be complicated.
This sort of thing will do the job.
https://www.glsed.co.uk/product/science/physics/newton-meters---5kg-50n-yellow