Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8

# Energy conservation violation

 Posts: 17 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/20/2014 12:17:21 PMPosted: 3 years agoFirst of all, I would like to say that this model is NOT a perpetual motion. It will stop eventually. What I want to say here is that the output useful work seems to be greater than input energyMy system consists of 2 elements. Each element is a cylinder put on an axle. There are two permanent magnets stuck on each cylinder, with their north poles are faced outside. In the youtube clip that I will show you below, you can see the magnets of the first element are painted in blue, while those of the second one are crossed with X.I turn the cylinders slightly so that the north poles of the magnets are faced each other. Then, the thrust between magnets make the cylinders rotate.A single cylinder on an axle itself is not the system. It is an element of the system, which consists of 2 at all. Therefore, the thrust between magnets is not external force which affect system. It is comprehended as internal force between 2 elements of the system. The thrust from the first cylinder makes the second rotate, and the thrust from the second, in its turn, make the first rotate. Each component act as the cause to make the other rotate, and it acquires the affect from the other to rotate.While the input work of the system originates from a small force making cylinders moving short arc, and make magnets facing each other, the output dynamic energy is much higher. You can see in the clip that both cylinders rotate many circles, which create output useful work much greater than the work to make the magnets facing each other.Here is the link of my clipYour comments are welcomed to determine that if energy conservation is violated in this case or notThanksThinh Nghiem from Vietnam
 Posts: 3,063 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/20/2014 12:48:51 PMPosted: 3 years agoI will admit upfront that I am biased-- it's not like it is easy to violate a scientific law.I see you making claims, but it is not backed up with calculations of any sort. Who says that the energy required to arrange the magnets is less than the dynamic output? Just going by how it "feels" can be very deceiving...Just your word on it, so far-- your word against a scientific law."I don"t have faith in faith I don"t believe in belief You can call me faithless But I still cling to hope And I believe in love And that"s faith enough for me" -Rush
 Posts: 3,063 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/20/2014 12:56:07 PMPosted: 3 years agoHaving looked at your claim a bit more, I see that you are confusing how much work is being done with distance moved. The torque required to set up the magnets is greater than that required to spin those super light cups.Basically, you are claiming that moving a heavy object one meter takes less energy than moving a very light object more than one meter."I don"t have faith in faith I don"t believe in belief You can call me faithless But I still cling to hope And I believe in love And that"s faith enough for me" -Rush
 Posts: 4,509 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/21/2014 1:19:58 AMPosted: 3 years agoThe device is no different in principle from two steel balls on strings, where one is set in motion and it hits the other, passing the momentum back and forth until the friction in the strings dissipates the startup force. No energy is added whatsoever, it is just a low-friction device that takes some time to wind down.What makes it interesting is that a magnetic field transfers the energy. There is a commercial toy that has three spinners, each magnetized. Spinning one of them puts the other two in motion in interesting ways. It runs until the original energy in the spin is dissipated.
 Posts: 17 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/22/2014 12:17:56 PMPosted: 3 years agoHi all,Yes, I am only an amateur experimentalist, not a professional scientist.The greater of the output work in compared with input force is just my feeling, not based on any calculationHowever, you can easily see in the clip that the cylinders rotate many rounds, in compare with the small force to turn them facing each otherThe setup of the magnets, as Fly said, is done only one time at the first, while the action can be done many timesAt 10/21/2014 1:19:58 AM, RoyLatham wrote:The device is no different in principle from two steel balls on strings, where one is set in motion and it hits the other, passing the momentum back and forth until the friction in the strings dissipates the startup force. No energy is added whatsoever, it is just a low-friction device that takes some time to wind down.What makes it interesting is that a magnetic field transfers the energy. There is a commercial toy that has three spinners, each magnetized. Spinning one of them puts the other two in motion in interesting ways. It runs until the original energy in the spin is dissipated.
 Posts: 4,509 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/22/2014 12:29:09 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 10/22/2014 12:17:56 PM, thinhnghiem wrote:The greater of the output work in compared with input force is just my feeling, not based on any calculationit's an illusion. I think it's easy to confuse the length of time during which motion persists with the actual work done. It's like it being amazing that a long pendulum can swing for days from a initial push.
 Posts: 3,063 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/22/2014 8:54:21 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 10/22/2014 12:17:56 PM, thinhnghiem wrote:Hi all,Yes, I am only an amateur experimentalist, not a professional scientist.The greater of the output work in compared with input force is just my feeling, not based on any calculationHowever, you can easily see in the clip that the cylinders rotate many rounds, in compare with the small force to turn them facing each otherThis has been explained, twice before this post, and now at least once after this post. Are you looking for honest explanations, or do you just want to believe that you have violated a physical law with something that is (honestly) unremarkable?If the former, your insistence that you are on to something here is confusing.If the latter, then: Wow!! That is amazing! That video should go viral over the sheer brilliance displayed in what must be a groundbreaking experiment.The setup of the magnets, as Fly said, is done only one time at the first, while the action can be done many timesAt 10/21/2014 1:19:58 AM, RoyLatham wrote:The device is no different in principle from two steel balls on strings, where one is set in motion and it hits the other, passing the momentum back and forth until the friction in the strings dissipates the startup force. No energy is added whatsoever, it is just a low-friction device that takes some time to wind down.What makes it interesting is that a magnetic field transfers the energy. There is a commercial toy that has three spinners, each magnetized. Spinning one of them puts the other two in motion in interesting ways. It runs until the original energy in the spin is dissipated."I don"t have faith in faith I don"t believe in belief You can call me faithless But I still cling to hope And I believe in love And that"s faith enough for me" -Rush
 Posts: 17 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/23/2014 12:11:50 PMPosted: 3 years agoSo now let's ignore the principal and theory. I would like to discuss a little bit in technicalI have plan to improve my model so that it can rotate longer, for example 1 hour. Do you think it is economical. It can be used in a rotor of a generator. We do not need fuel, just our manual force, and the rotor will spin for a long time to generate current. Is it OK?