@John Your view of what is conserved and why is too simple, and essentially incomplete.
All force interactions perform work against the vacuum activity manifesting that force - the discrete, quantised energy exchanges between the respective force carriers in question, traded in units of h-bar - essentially, 'ambient' quantum momentum. When we input mechanical energy to a such field, there is no number scribbled down in a book somewhere - rather, it's an emergent calculation determined by the application of the relevant F*d integrals being mediated at lightspeed - ie, essentially instantaneously, as they pertain to the respective dimensions of the given energy terms. Thus if output and input energy terms are in different respective dimensions, any equivalence between net energies as a function of changes in time and space is dependent upon further conditions with regards to how each term scales in the other's domain. If both input and output energy terms are in the same fields and domains, then their equality is a given. And yet, it would be a step too far to conclude that the Joule we get back out was 'the same' Joule we put it. When we spend 1 J lifting a weight, so having performed work against gravity, there isn't a tab somewhere saying "gravity owes Bob 1 J". The fact that we only get 1 J back out from the drop is simply an incidental consequence of the invariant input vs output conditions. But it's not manifestly 'the same' Joule you put in - just the same amount of energy / work. With the right change in those determinant conditions, we can get more out, or less. An under-unity, or over-unity result. Consider the case for so-called 'non-dissipative' loss mechanisms, in which the energy in question has NOT simply been radiated away to low-grade heat. I'm talking about 'non-thermodynamic' losses, in the literal sense. For example: - Due to Sv (entropy viscosity - the subject of Rutherford's first paper in 1886), a small NdFeB magnet will rapidly leap across a small airgap to latch onto a lump of 'pig iron', in less time than is required for the iron's subsequent induced magnetisation ('B', in Maxwell's terms) to reach its corresponding threshold (Bmax, or even saturation density - Bmax - if its coercivity is low enough). So the iron's level of induced B, from the neo, continues increasing long after the mechanical action's all over. We could monitor this changing internal state, using a simple coil and audio amplifier, tuning in to the so-called Barkhausen jumps, as progressively harder-pinned domains succumb to the growing influence of their lower-coercivity neighbors. After some time, the clicking noise abates, and so we know the sample's at Bmax. We now prise them apart again, however because B has risen, so has the mechanical force and thus work involved in separating them. Quite simply, due to the time-dependent change in force, which did not occur instantaneously at lightspeed, the system is mechanically under-unity - it outputs less energy during the inbound integral, than must be input during the outbound integral over the same distance. So we could input 2 J, but only get 1 J back out. Yet this 'loss' has not been dissipated as heat - it's simply energy that never existed, never came to be, in the first place. Energy that could've been collected, had we constrained the neo's approach speed, to allow induced B to keep up... but which wasn't, because we didn't. Thus the extra Joule we had to input has performed more work against the virtual-photon-spehere (being the EM mediator), than it in turn has output back into the mechanical realm. Assuming ultimate conservation - as you would seem to - we've raised the vacuum energy by 1 J, with a 50% under-unity EM-mechanical interaction. Yet we don't need such exotica as obscure magnetic effects to achieve this feat... simply consider a moving mass, colliding inelastically with an equal, static one: - so we could have 1 kg flying into a static 1 kg - or equally, a rotating 1 kg-m^2 angular inertia being instantly braked against an identical static one Since spontaneously doubling the amount of inertia that a given conserved momentum is divided into accordingly halves its speed, we end up with half the kinetic energy. "Ah", but you say, "the collision converted the other half of the KE into heat!" But is that actually what happens? If we began with say 1 kg * 1 m/s linear momentum, so half a Joule, which then inelastically scoops up another, static 1 kg, we now have 1 kg-m/s divided into two 1 kg masses, hence a net system velocity of 0.5 m/s, and 125 mJ on each, for a 250 mJ net KE. Notice that we've necessarily assumed full conservation of our velocity component, simply sharing it evenly between the two masses, in order to conserve net momentum. Given that the original KE value of 500 mJ was a function of that conserved velocity, and that the final KE of 2 * 125 mJ is also dependent upon the equitable distribution of that same conserved quantity.. where does the velocity and thus momentum that could constitute mechanical heat come from? How could we have accelerated the air and molecules around the system, if not by transferring momentum and thus velocity to them? Which would mean we'd have to have LESS than 0.5 m/s of velocity and thus less than 0.5 kg-m/s of momentum and so less than 125 mJ on each 1 kg mass! There can be no paradoxes.. In short, elastic collisions conserve net energy, but not net momentum - try calculating the same interactions fully elastically and you'll necessarily be invoking a rise in momentum. Conversely, inelastic ones conserve net momentum, but not energy. This loss, by the very nature of its constituent terms and conserved quantities, is non-dissipative. Only its non-reversibility with respect to time prevents easy access to energy gains. This is entropy, albeit acting on a level beyond strict 'thermodynamics'. Like i've always said, the explicit instructions on how thwart CoE and CoM are implicit within their terms of enforcement. Read between the lines, they tell you precisely what not to do if you don't want to get a unity result. Without this kung fu, i would never have been so stupid as to take a second look at Bessler's claim, let alone tackle it with confidence. But with it, the evidence of Leibniz et al meant that i couldn't fail. Success was guaranteed. There had to be an unnoticed symmetry break riding through the middle of classical mechanics, an elephant in the custard, that with a little determination could be tracked and cornered... and now i've bagged it. Not just wounded it. Not "close, but i'm running out of hamsters". There was a fully-grown African bull elephant perfectly concealed in the custard bowl, and i've totally harnessed it, by "accelerating without accelerating", and now nobody will believe me and it's so unfair etc. On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:37 PM, John Shop <quack...@outlook.com> wrote: > On 1/06/2018 5:35 AM, Vibrator ! wrote: > > . . . > The thing is, a real model is inherently suspect - defeating its > ostensible purpose. Batteries and motors can be hidden, etc. > > If you make it out of clear perspex with the minimum steel parts like > bearings, springs, etc then there is nowhere to hide batteries. > > . . . you've still no idea what the putative gain mechanism is. > > Since it requires new physics, this is unavoidable until the new physics > mechanism that provides the gain can be guessed at. > > Now consider that you have the same thing in simulation - except now, the > thing has its entire guts out. You can see the values of everything, in > every field. Everything is independently metered, using standard formulas > that can be manually checked by anyone. So you can independently calculate > the input and output work integrals, from their respective dependent > variables, which are also all clearly displayed, and confirm for yourself > that everything is being presented accurately. You can immediately > replicate the results on the back of an envelope, from first principles. > > Since all physics calculations and simulations are FOUNDED on conservation > of energy, such simulations CANNOT produce "overunity". If they do seem to > produce it then you know you have a BUG in your code and by checking "the > input and output work integrals" you can pin down which formula you have > entered incorrectly, by finding the exact process in which excess energy > appears (or disappears). It is only when you get a perfect energy balance > throughout (as well as CoM, etc) that you know your code is finally working. > > On 4/06/2018 1:03 AM, Vibrator ! wrote: > > . . . i've already done it. . . No New physics. > > Sorry, if there is "No New physics" then you can't have done it. You have > simply made a mistake. I suggest you find a friend who is good at physics > to check your equations for the term(s) which you must have neglected or > included in error. Even if the person does not understand what you tell > them, you can often discover the mistake yourself while trying to explain > it to someone else at a detailed enough level. > > If you had built something which you claimed clearly worked (like Bessler > did), then you could be right and you could have made an amazing > (re)discovery that would require all the basic physics text books to need > correcting with the NEW PHYSICS that your working model has demonstrated. > But if it is just maths and simulation applied to standard known physics, > then everybody who knows this stuff KNOWS that you must have made a > mistake. . . . Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. > > Consider an illustration that might help. Supposing you started with a > litre of water in a flask, and decided to pass it through some very > complicated transformation processes. So you might boil it to a vapour, > condense it in a fractional distillation column, run fractions through > filters of various sorts, freeze some and grind it to a paste, and so on, > ad nauseum. In the end, no matter what you did to it, you will not have > managed to increase or decrease the number of molecules of water through > any of these processes. The amount of water at the end would be just the > same as what you started with - and almost all well educated people would > refuse to believe otherwise. Without NEW CHEMISTRY you cannot ever get an > overunity production of water molecules. > > Well the same is true of energy. You can transform it in far more ways > than you can molecules, but through all these processes, the number of > joules (just as the number of molecules) remains constant. Physicists know > this and CANNOT believe otherwise. Unless you can propose some NEW PHYSICS > to explain how the extra joules came to appear within the system, it is > simply not possible to believe. All the physics equations that we have are > based on the conservation of energy because we have never had a system in > captivity to study that breaks this law. >