Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: LB7 on 24/05/2016 17:07:50

Title: T-V not constant with that device ?
Post by: LB7 on 24/05/2016 17:07:50
Look the device at the last message post please.
Title: Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
Post by: timey 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...
Title: Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
Post by: impyre 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.
Title: Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
Post by: impyre 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?
Title: Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
Post by: impyre 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.
Title: Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
Post by: guest39538 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?

Title: Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
Post by: guest39538 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

 [ Invalid Attachment ]













 











Title: Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
Post by: guest39538 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?



Title: Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
Post by: guest39538 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 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=57580.0)


Maybe with this device:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fbcncn73.png&hash=a77bcecb7977f872586de3682020e900)


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.
Title: Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
Post by: guest39538 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?

Title: Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
Post by: jerrygg38 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.
Title: Re: The sum of torque not at 0 ?
Post by: jerrygg38 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.
Title: Re: How to increase a potential energy without energy
Post by: PmbPhy 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?
Title: Re: How to increase a potential energy without energy
Post by: GoC on 03/09/2016 17:15:24
You cannot remove entropy from mass.
Title: Re: How to increase a potential energy without energy
Post by: GoC 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.

Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: ProjectSailor 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)
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: jerrygg38 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.
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: jerrygg38 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.
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira 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...
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: PmbPhy on 06/12/2016 11:39:07
Look the device at the last message post please.
Without having read it I can see that it's a purely mechanical device. As such it can be shown that all such devices conserve energy. While potential energy can always be increased by simply reducing kinetic energy its the total energy that's conserved.
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: LB7 on 07/12/2016 15:33:18
Yes, it is a pure mechanical device but I don't find my error. Like there is no mass and no friction (theoretical device) I thought it was easy to find the error. The volume is constant.
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: Kryptid on 03/02/2017 05:06:19
I don't think I understand your concept very well, but if you are trying to compress or stretch a spring, then force is necessary to make that happen. If your system is set up in such a way that pushing on the walls will invariably cause the spring to compress or stretch, then the spring itself will represent a resistance to any attempts to push the walls. This will require input energy to overcome.
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: Kryptid on 03/02/2017 17:04:18
If there is no mass then you're already proposing a device that cannot exist in our world.

The act of moving the blue spheres will require energy as will the act of deforming the container.
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: Kryptid on 03/02/2017 19:54:30
Regardless of whether you think mass is real or an illusion, it doesn't change the fact that energy is needed to move an object with what we refer to as mass, If your device is truly massless, then it can't contain any energy in the first place because energy itself corresponds to a certain amount of mass thanks to the relation E=mc^2. Even light has an effective mass associated with it. So your potential energy is zero.

One of the problems here is that English doesn't appear to be your first language. That's making it more difficult for me to understand your diagrams.
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/02/2017 20:23:14
You're right, english is not my first language, but all forums in physics ban new theories. I found only this forum. And forums where people believe it is possible to create over-unity devices are more interesting with videos (fakes) than physics. If you don't understand something I can explain with others words and phrases, the device is not complex.

I can relate. In my youth, I had a lot of theories and inventions, including perpetual motion machines. As I learned more, I realized why they would not work... for the most part. I did independently come up with the idea of the Scharnhorst effect (an increase in the speed of light between Casimir plates) in college, for example, but it has yet to be tested so I don't know if I was right about that or not.

Quote
I consider the mass at 0 like the friction, if you want you can consider the mass very small. The potential energy at start comes from the springs, even the mass of the spring is small the kinetic energy exist.

So the springs start out in a state of tension, right? That's where the initial input energy comes from? Okay.

Quote
To believe or not to believe ? some people believe in god (I see your personal message about Jesus) I believe it is possible to create the energy and it is not exclusive, people can believe 2 beliefs :)

There's nothing wrong with believing that there are new things to be discovered. I'm going to try to understand your device first before I do too much more critiquing of it.

Quote
http://imgur.com/VuLGDBp (http://imgur.com/VuLGDBp)

http://imgur.com/itT8yiw (http://imgur.com/itT8yiw)

http://imgur.com/EMrJDu4 (http://imgur.com/EMrJDu4)

I forgot the final energy at 2 first cases: read "the final energy is Y" for the first case and "the final energy is Y-d" for the second:

http://imgur.com/YPCKHau (http://imgur.com/YPCKHau)
 

Some questions:

(1) Are all of the blue spheres attached to the ground by springs or only those that are right next to the ground? Surely all of them can't be attached, because there wouldn't be any room for the springs to be attached to all of the spheres in the container.
(2) When you say that you "move out" the blue spheres, what mechanism are you using to remove the spheres from the container and then return them to the container?
(3) Is this a cycle or a single-step process? If the springs are under tension at the start (with a deformed/slanted container), then it seems like the device should stop moving once the springs have expended their stored energy by bringing the container into an upright/undeformed shape.
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: Kryptid on 06/02/2017 05:13:59
Quote
With an external device, I didn't draw it. But the I count the energy needed for move in the spheres and the energy recovered to move out the spheres. The volume is always the same.

I think I'm getting a better picture of this now: the white disk is surrounded by blue spheres so that the pressure on all sides of the disk are equal. Then, you remove some blue spheres from one side of the white disk so that the pressure on one side of the disk is now greater than the pressure on the other side, which causes it to move. Once it has moved, you return the blue spheres to a place behind the white disk. Is this what happens?

I don't see how you get any more energy out of the scenario where the blues spheres are moved around than you would in the scenario where they are not moved. The total energy contained in the system is in the form of the tension of the springs and this does not change whether you move the spheres around or not. Basically, all you are doing in the scenario with the moving spheres is taking an extra step in extracting energy from the springs (since the spheres which were in front of the white disk are now closer to the floor when they are moved behind the disk, the springs that they are attached to are now shorter and therefore some of the potential energy that was stored in them has been released. However, this simply represents a percentage of the total potential energy that was already contained in the them, not an increase in total potential energy.)

Consider your model where you calculate the total amount of energy contained in and released from a single spring throughout the course of the cycle. It should be constant. The only way you could get any extra energy out of that spring would be if, at some point, the spring is spontaneously made to be longer at some point of the cycle without any input energy. Since that does not seem to happen (the springs only get shorter), I'd say you get no extra energy.

Quote
Yes, this is a cycle. At start there is a potential energy Ep1, at final the potential energy is Ep2, the walls recover the energy Ep1-Ep2. Ep2<Ep1. The energy from the difference of lengths L1/L2 is an additional energy that I don't find where I lost it.

So the cycle goes from a distorted container to an undistorted container and then back to a distorted container again to repeat the cycle? How is the device going to go spontaneously from the undistorted shape back to the distorted shape? That would require the springs to spontaneously stretch themselves, which is not how springs behave. Input energy is need to stretch a spring.
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: Kryptid on 06/02/2017 21:32:46
Like the mass of the blue spheres is near 0, I think the sum of forces from the blue spheres on the white disk is 0. The white disk don't have a force and like its mass is near 0 I don't need an energy to move it (in theory). I move in/out the blue spheres in the same time:

If the blue spheres exert no pressure or force on the white disk then what causes the disk to move? It won't move on its own. Zero mass objects don't really "work" in physics as we know it, so we don't know how such an entity should behave. If the disk has even a tiny amount of mass, then energy of some amount would be required to move it. It won't happen on its own.

Quote
I move out the blue spheres in the same time I move in the others. For that, I need, at start, an extra layer of blue spheres with springs to move in because I can't move out and move in the same spheres in two different places. There is always a layer of blue spheres outside the device. The last layer of blue spheres moving out becomes the layer outside, ready to be used for another move-in/out. Like that the pressure don't change because I move in/out the blue spheres.

Now I have to wonder how you are inserting blue spheres behind the disk. The space behind the disk is already filled with blue spheres and you imply that the blue spheres cannot exert any pressure on the disk. You can't move the disk forward if the spheres you are trying to insert don't exert any pressure in order to actually move it forward. You can't use "zero mass" as the answer because that doesn't work, For example, try calculating the velocity of a zero mass object with a finite kinetic energy. The equation blows up to infinity. It just doesn't work. If you say that the mass is actually very small, then the blue spheres have to exert a pressure of some type in order to overcome the inertia that the disk's mass possesses.

Quote
I study the sum of energy only from the left position to the right position.

Presumably, you are measuring the energy by measuring the length of the springs in each case? That's were the energy is ultimately stored.


I don't repeat the cycle.

Then it isn't actually a cycle. Cycles repeat.
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/02/2017 23:32:55
Yes, I count all the energies stored in the springs.


So when the container is in a distorted position, the springs are longer/stretched, and when the container goes to the undistorted position, the springs are relaxed and no longer in a state of tension?
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: Kryptid on 09/02/2017 06:39:23
I supposed the force from each spring don't change with the length of the spring, just to simplify the thinking of the device. So at start the force from a spring is F and at final the force of a spring is F. It is theoretical device but just because like that it is easier to resolve or to find the error.

Then what you have are not even springs. If there is no force acting on the springs then they can store no energy because the energy stored within a spring is a result of force (either tension or compression). Simplify a model too much and it ceases to make sense. If you weren't planning on storing energy in the springs then how were you planning on storing it? No force = no energy. You might not need to calculate the force, but it most certainly needs to be there in order to be sensible.
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: Kryptid on 10/02/2017 01:03:11
The energy is well stored in the springs at start. With a standard spring, the force is k*x but here I use the equation F=k.

Some springs exist:
http://www.scherdel.com/en/produkte/umformtechnik-technische-federn/roll-triebfedern/index.php (http://www.scherdel.com/en/produkte/umformtechnik-technische-federn/roll-triebfedern/index.php)

It is possible to think with the force = k to simplify the device.
Nonetheless, the springs are still subject to force in order to store energy. Constant force doesn't mean zero force.

I still don't see why you think you're getting energy out of nowhere. You're extracting energy from the system by removing blue spheres and their springs from in front of the white disk and replacing them with blue spheres and springs that are shorter (and therefore contain less potential energy) behind the disk. You're not getting anything out that wasn't already there in the first place.

Take note that the end state of the system is also going to look slightly different in your condition where you move spheres than in the condition where you don't move them. It looks like, in your original scenario, the white disk ends up pointing straight up at the end of the procedure and the bar connecting the white disk to the ground is always parallel to the orientation of the springs in your container. In the scenario where you move blue spheres, this is no longer the case. There are now more blue spheres behind the disk and fewer in front of it. This means that the bar connecting the white disk to the ground is going to be at a different angle than those of the springs. Once the container has come to a relaxed, undistorted state, the bar connecting the white disk to the ground is no longer going to be pointing straight up but is going to be leaning to the left a bit. Did you take that into consideration with your calculations?
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: Kryptid on 10/02/2017 20:28:23
I do. My thinking:

1/ At start, the energy is 'X-d' with 'X' the energy stored if the container was fulled of blue spheres, and 'd' the energy lost because there is the white disk

Then 'd' should always exist whenever the disk is present, because it represents a lack of springs and therefore a lack of the ability of the system to store energy. This should be true whether the process is at its start or its end and whether you rearrange the spheres or not.

Quote
2/ The walls give W

Why do the walls give any energy? By what mechanism are the walls storing energy?

Quote
3/ At final, the energy stored is Y-d with 'Y-d' the energy stored in the container and W+Y-d=X-d

The term 'd' is canceled because it is at final and at start

I do not follow this. If 'd' literally represents a deficit in the system's ability to store energy (because energy-storing springs are absent from the region where the white disk is) then 'd' must be present in all states when the white disk is present, whether it is at its start or its finish. The net number of springs in the system remains constant and does not change from beginning to end. The only way to remove 'd' is to remove the disk and fill the empty space with springs and spheres.

Quote
BECAUSE the white disk rotates.

Why should this make any difference? You said that it takes no energy to move the disk and therefore the disk cannot store any form of energy whether it rotates or not.

Quote
I But I win the energy from the move out/in the blue spheres.

You removed it from the container, which means the container now contains less energy than it did before. You didn't create any new energy.
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: Kryptid on 11/02/2017 19:31:28
I would like to say if there was not the white disk, the energy stored inside the container is X.

So as long as the white disk is present, 'd' is not cancelled out, whether it rotates or not.

An external device give the energy to rotate the right wall and recover the energy from the left wall.

Okay.

Quote
The energy stored in the device is the sum of the lengths of the springs, not the number of springs. Like the white disk rotates, the energy lost at start (compared with a container fulled of blue spheres) because there is the white disk is the same that at final because it is a rotation.

Why does the rotation make any difference as to the energy content of the container?
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: Kryptid on 12/02/2017 17:52:08
The rotation of the white disk ? You would like to rotate the walls (change the shape of the container) but not the white disk ?

No, I'm asking why you think that the rotation of the white disk makes any difference as to the energy content of the container.

Quote
X=Y+W (without the white disk)

Like X=Y+W even there is the white disk

These two statements are contradictory to one-another.

Quote
in the first case or the second case, the potential energy stored in the container pass from X to Y (Y<W) but the external device recovers from the walls the energy: W=X-Y. But in the first case, I win the potential energy : sum of difference of length (L1-L2) of all the springs I need to move out/in. In the second case, I lost the potential energy : sum of difference of length (L2-L1) of all the springs I need to move out/in.

Yes, the energy inside the container is less now because some of it was carried away by the springs and spheres you removed. That doesn't give you energy out of nowhere.
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: Kryptid on 13/02/2017 22:02:06
Ok, the white disk rotates. I'm not sure to understand,  Maybe we are agree on that point. When the white disk is in the container, the container has less stored energy because there are less springs. But like the white disk rotates, the energy in less at start is the same that at final.

Here you go again, saying that the rotation of the white disk somehow affects the energy content of the container. How? You have yet to explain that to me. If the disk requires no energy to move and can store no energy then it can't affect the energy content of the container whether it rotates or not.

Quote
I have the same variable 'd' at left and at right in the equation (start and final) so I can cancel 'd':

X-d=Y-d+W <=> X=Y+W

That's not how math works. You can't cancel out variables that way. I'll replace the variables with some actual numbers to demonstrate this. I'll say X = 100, d = 5, Y = 50, and W = 50:

100 - 5 = 50 - 5 + 50 <=> 100 = 50+50\
95 = 45 + 50 <=> 100 = 100
95 = 95 <=> 100 = 100

Since 95 does not equal 100, your concept of cancelling things out does not work.

Quote
But delete a variable don't say the variable don't exist at all.

In this case it does. You can't simultaneously say that the disk is there and not there. I showed you that the math doesn't work that way.

Quote
The representation of the energy at start is X-d, at final it is Y-d+W + the energy from the differences of length L2/L1. If the energy at final was only Y-d+W the energy will be conserved but I recover the energy from the differences of lengths L2/L1 of the blue spheres I move out/in.

The energy contained inside of the springs that you remove was removed from X. You have no new energy.

Quote
But it was lower at start too.

Exactly. Lower at the start and lower at the end because energy is conserved.
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: Kryptid on 14/02/2017 06:24:26
The presence of the white disk inside the container affects the stored energy. Because the stored energy is the sum of all lengths of the springs. And if there is the white disk, there are less springs, so the sum is lower. But like the white disk rotates, the stored energy is reduced at start of a value I noted 'd' and at final it is 'd' too. If the white disk is fixed, the stored energy is changed, from start to final, because the orientations of the springs change, at start the orientation is 45° at final it is 90°, the mean lengths pass from sqrt(2) to 1 (for example).

A fixed disk? I didn't know any aspect of your experiment involved a fixed disk. I thought it was free to rotate such that it always aligned with the container walls?

Quote
Ok, forget the sign "<=>' in my previous message. I calculated the energy without the white disk. Without the white disk, the energy at start is for example 100 not 95. And I know the energy at final too without the white disk. I calculated the energy recovers by the walls, that energy don't change if the white disk is inside the container or not. When I added the white disk, I know I lost for example '5'. The values of the variables W, Y, X and d are known.

Okay.

Quote
But in this case, I don't understand where I remove that energy from the container, do you ?

You removed it when you removed the springs from the container. The springs are stretched and therefore contain potential energy. When you take those springs out, you take their potential energy with them. You only replace some of that energy when you add new springs because the new springs are not stretched as long as the originals. How you choose to stretch those newly added springs is up to you, but it will definitely require some energy to stretch them. If you decide to use some kind of device to extract the energy from the original springs in order to stretch the new springs, then that will work but the original springs will still have some energy left over after it is all done.

Quote
I recover the energy from the difference of lengths L2/L1, maybe that energy come from the the stored energy inside the container but in this case I would like to understand how the energy is transfered.

It is transferred by your action of removing the springs. When you put new springs in, you put new energy into the system (because you have to stretch the new springs a little bit in order to make them fit, thus adding potential energy to the system) but it isn't quite as much as the total energy you removed from the system when you took out the original springs because the original springs were, on average, longer.
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: Kryptid on 14/02/2017 15:57:42
The springs attract (want to reduce their length), so when the spring reduces its length it gives an energy. For me, to have the conservation of the energy, the springs that move out/in musn't give or take any energy. The equation of conservation is X-d=Y-d+W, with X=Y+W.

Removing energy from a system doesn't violate conservation of energy so long as that energy does actually go somewhere else. A stretched spring contains potential energy and if that spring is allowed to relax, that potential energy is turned into kinetic energy (mostly thermal and vibrational energy if it is allowed to relax on its on, but it can be converted into other forms if the contraction of the spring is used to power a device of some kind). Your container is not a closed system (because you can add or remove things from it), so its energy content changes over time.

Quote
The action of move out the blue spheres gives the same energy than the action of move in (I don't speak about the length of the springs) because the pressure is the same at left than at right for each layer.

The energy required to remove or add springs may be the same, but the energy content of the springs of differing length is not. That's why the energy content of the container changes. The energy content of the container plus the removed and added springs, however, does not change.
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/02/2017 05:18:34
When I count the energy, the device is not only the container, it is the external device that rotates the walls, it is the device that changes the length of springs from L1 to L2 (that device recover an energy). All the things I speak are the closed device, so the sum of energy must be constant.

So you consider the springs that you remove from the container to still be a part of the system? Then your energy will remain constant.

Quote
I supposed the springs perfect, mass very low, no friction, etc. But even you considered a real spring, the energy lost in friction is an energy, that energy from friction must be take in the account of the sum.

Yes.

Quote
I don't understand how ? I have all the energies: X, W, Y, d, and the equation with the conservation of the energy: X-d=Y-d+W (the left member is the energy at start and the right member is the energy at final). But I have X-d=Y-d+W+e with 'e' the energy that comes from the difference of the length L1/L2.

I think I can come up with more accurate equations. To summarize my variables:

'X' = the potential energy contained within the springs inside of the container at the beginning when they are in a stretched state.
'd' = the potential energy that is missing from the container due to the presence of the white disk.
'W1' = the energy entering through the first wall.
'W2' = the energy received by the second wall.
'Y1' = the potential energy contained within the springs inside of the container at the end when they are fully relaxed if no springs are rearranged.
'Y2' = the potential energy contained within the springs inside of the container at the end when they are fully relaxed if some springs are rearranged.
'e' = the potential energy removed from the container that makes up the difference between L1 and L2

In the scenario where the springs are not rearranged.

X - d + W1 = Y1 - d + W2

If they are rearranged, then:

X - d + W1 = Y2 - d + W2 + e

Take note that 'Y1' equals 'Y2' + 'e'. That is important. Both of these equations conserve energy.

I'm starting to feel like this is a pointless endeavor. I've explained it about as well as I can. If that's not good enough, it seems I may not be able to explain it in a way that you can understand.
Title: Re: Can potential energy be increased without supplying energy?
Post by: puppypower on 04/03/2017 11:36:55
There is a simple way, based on acceptable science, that can increase potential energy, without adding energy. This is connected to the concept of relative reference. As an example, say we have a train of mass M, that departs from a train station. We use X amount of diesel fuel, which supplies energy to accelerate the train to velocity V. We now have potential energy, within the train, based on its mass and velocity; kinetic energy and momentum.

The way to increase potential energy, without actually adding any new energy, is to assume relative reference. In this case, someone sitting on the moving train looking outside at the train station and the surrounding landscape. To them, the station and the landscape appears to be moving with velocity V. Since the new moving mass has increased; sum of the station plus all the scenery, the kinetic energy and therefore the potential energy has increased, without adding any energy. It is done with the imagination.

Energy conservation breaks when we use relative reference, except under special conditions. If the sum of station and observable scenery had the  same mass as the train, the energy balance would add up for both references  When we look out into space and assume no absolute reference, there is no way to do a proper energy balance, since there is rarely mass symmetry for all relative references.
Title: Re: T-V not constant with that device ?
Post by: LB7 on 01/04/2018 15:07:10
The idea seems pretty good.

The device is there to break the “law” of conservation of the energy. It is a theoretical device. It is unstable, I need to use an external device to control it. That external device count all the energies in/out. It is not a cycle just a study from the start to the end, I stop when the device is at the end.


I use small spheres and springs to have a gradient of pressure like gravity can do with water in a glass. But here, no mass, no gravity, no friction to simplify the calculations. The blue color is like water, blue spheres are like molecules of water, gravity is replaced by the springs. Like that, I can have a rotational attraction (the angle of attraction change when the device is deformed).


I don’t need calculation, it is logical. My logic:

- If I move out/in the white parts, the energy is conserved.
- If I move out the white parts and move in the blue spheres, the green line wins more than the springs lost in their length (potential energy). I think it is exactly the double.



At start:


* r9.png (108.3 kB . 1019x617 - viewed 3769 times)

Another angle of deformation:


* r5.png (193.53 kB . 1018x618 - viewed 3751 times)

At the end:


* r3.png (34.22 kB . 1018x618 - viewed 3775 times)

What I move out from where and what I move in and to where:


* r6.png (207.6 kB . 1018x617 - viewed 3738 times)
Title: Re: T-V not constant with that device ?
Post by: LB7 on 02/04/2018 17:24:13
Great, that method works with previous ideas where there was a white shape in rotation. When the device is deformed I replace white parts by blue spheres+springs:


* rd2.png (25.25 kB . 968x553 - viewed 3472 times)

Or with a fixed white shape in the ground:


* cx3.png (55.42 kB . 1006x589 - viewed 3464 times)
Title: Re: T-V not constant with that device ?
Post by: LB7 on 04/04/2018 12:16:27
I add a gif animation:

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

I think it is the best device to prove with logic the energy is not conserved.
Title: Re: T-V not constant with that device ?
Post by: LB7 on 04/04/2018 17:12:42
With a fixed object:

At start, there is the container with a white square:


* rnj.png (11.36 kB . 1110x761 - viewed 2904 times)

With a small deformation:

* dxr.png (62.79 kB . 1153x691 - viewed 2922 times)

At final, the white square is outside, all the area occupied by the white square is replaced by the blue spheres.

Just a small angle of deformation to show what move in/out.

Method 1/ I move out the white part from left and I move in the white part to the right, the energy is conserved
Method 2/ I move out the white part from the left and I move in the blue spheres to the right, all the springs are attached to the green line, even the springs of the new blue spheres (move in), the length of the springs will lost a potential energy but half compared to the energy won by the green line.
Title: Re: T-V not constant with that device ?
Post by: LB7 on 05/04/2018 16:18:10
I corrected the gif:


* tr.gif (462.74 kB . 965x661 - viewed 2782 times)
Title: Re: T-V not constant with that device ?
Post by: LB7 on 07/04/2018 17:57:52
In the last device, I drew 18 white rectangles but I can have in theory 100 or more, so there is no torque from the white rectangles (for the method where I move out/in the white parts) if the number of the white rectangles is very high. There is a difference of energy between move in the white rectangles compared to move in blue spheres.