sci.physics.electromag

----------------------------
wrote in message
news:a09b12a1-370a-41ac-8169-7bea1d0a0538@o10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 21, 4:28 am, "Don Kelly" wrote:
>> ---------------------------- wrote in message
>>
>> news:f062bc8a-3bd2-4482-80cb-fcb606f3672e@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Feb 20, 12:03 am, Bob Cain wrote:
>>
>> >> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
>>
>> >> A. Einstein
>>
>> > Cool, there is still some one propagating the lies of E.
>>
>> > Well tell me Bobby.
>>
>> > Is this simple enough for you?
>>
>> >http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=750
>> > View topic - Perpetual motion made simple.
>>
>> > I have done my homework well haven't I?
>>
>> > Then now that you clearly agree we have all been livin-the-lie on just
>> > about any topic you think you know something about, I think giving me
>> > your compliments would be appropriate here. And thank me for gifting
>> > you the invention of course. yes....
>>
>> > Then I look forwards to your review there of when you have acquired
>> > the magnets to back up your claims.
>>
>> > I claim the generalized doubt theorem doesn't hold against 20 sec
>> > experiments. Earth would become the center of the universe if that
>> > approach was credible.
>>
>> > My thanks in advance.
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> And how does this cute little animation with weak narrative indicate
>> perpetual motion? Perpetual motion would be easy if one could build a
>> lossless system. So far nobody has done so. Of course, any attempt to
>> extract energy would bring it to a stop in any case.
>> --
>>
>> Don Kelly d...@shawcross.ca
>> remove the X to answer
>
> Hello Don,
>
> Thanks for the review,
>
> (1680) mathematician, Claus Wagner, refused to view the Bessler wheel.
> He calculated that it was impossible and against all laws of physics
> so there was no point in even considering the possibility.
>
> I now calculate 300+ years this divine truth('S?!:) never had the
> pleasure of validation.
>
> But you are making it even worse aint ya? I understand you learn:
> "Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics, a Perpetual Motion
> Machine is impossible."
>
> But teh facts are that Helmholtz said: "Because a Perpetual Motion
> Machine is impossible, therefore the First Law of Thermodynamics;"
>
> You swap the child and the parent.
>
> Sure additional proofs where searched for to further propagate
> established doctrine.
>
> But hey, if by law you never have to look at the alternatives it
> becomes awfully easy.
>
> I tried to answer your technical questions here under the cute
> animation. :-)
>
> http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=758#758

Actually, you haven't done at all well for a technical explanation. You have
resorted to hand waving and assumptions which you haven't supported.
In addition, you appear to confuse force and energy- two different things.
One can exert a force without any change in energy - I am doing this now-
just sitting still in my chair.

However, consider that in a given position x of the moving armature at any
given time, there is a total energy W(x) which is the sum of the magnetic
field energy, the kinetic and potential mechanical energy of the system.
This is position dependent. If one moves from position x to y and then one
returns to the original position (x) and the original total energy as well
as the original distribution of this energy. No net energy change in the
cycle. Assuming that there are no losses or energy extracted as useful
work, the oscillation can go on forever because nothing is sucking energy
from the system. This would be perpetual motion. Note that this idealised
system allows perpetual motion.

However: No ideal system exists and even it it did, it couldn't do any more
than keep itself going.

Any useful work as well as the inevitable losses that occur will remove
energy from this system. If there is no compensating energy input (from
outside), the motion will eventually cease. There must then be some energy
input to keep the system going.
The magnets are not such a source as extracting net energy from the magnets
will demagnetize them.

Soooo, you are left with the problem of "where the hell does the energy come
from to keep such a system going?" Do you have any suggestions that stand
up to scrutiny?

As an aside, I do have the tools and understanding of magnetic and
mechanical systems to back up my statements. Electromagnetic/mechanical
energy conversion has been at the center of a large part of my life. I
suppose that this makes me unhappy in the "ignorance is bliss" sweepstakes
and leaves me wanting more rational arguments than what you have presented.

By the way, conservation of energy (actually based on experiment just as any
other physical "law" )hasn't been disproved by many years of experimentation
and claims. This makes it a useful tool from an engineering viewpoint
because it works to predict behaviour correctly.
That doesn't mean that it can't be disproved but playing with permanent
magnetic configurations has been repeatedly shown to be unable to disprove
it. This is one of those systems.
--

Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer