On 5/06/2018 2:40 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
Your view of what is conserved and why is too simple, and essentially 

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.
I agree with you.  It is not manifestly the same joule.  So depositing money in 
the bank may be a better illustration (or pumping electrical power into the 
electricity grid).  I can deposit $1000 in one city in $20 bills and pull the 
same amount out in another city in $50 bills.  It is not manifestly the same 
cash that I have taken back out, but the bank makes sure that the amounts 
always balance!  So Nature does the same job as the bank tellers and 
accountants.  Whenever you do the calculation correctly, after allowing for 
incomings and outgoings, the overall energy balance sheet always balances 
perfectly - which is almost the same as saying that gravity owes Bob 1 J!

You might wonder who the tellers and accountants are that work for mother 
Nature.  The simple answer is that they are Newton's equations.  When applied 
correctly the spreadsheet always ends up balanced because the equations 
themselves are balanced.  I believe that you can achieve an imbalance, but not 
by operating in accord with Newton's equations.  You have to do something a lot 
more subtle and sneaky and discover an effect that has not been noticed and a 
term that has not been included in the equations.  And it is bound to be a 
small effect (eg < 1% of energy being exchanged) or it would have been noticed 
a long time ago.

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.
By my calculation you have got nothing out.  You let the magnet fly and collide 
into the pig-iron so that the 1 J you might have recovered from its kinetic 
energy ended up as heat during the collision.

Following this the permanent magnet slowly magnetises the pig-iron.  To the 
extent that this is slow (due to magnetic viscosity) and occurs in jumps 
(generating Barkhausen noise), this process is lossy and generates heat by 
jiggling the domains.  The fact that you have forced pinned sites to become 
magnetized means that some of the induced magnetization will be retained.  So 
that now when you try to prize them apart you are also working against some 
permanent magnetism.  So the energy required to force pinned sites to switch 
magnetization (some of which was dissipated as heat) now has to be put back 
into the system as the force required to return the permanent magnet back to 
its initial position.  So you have to put in both the kinetic energy (1 J) that 
you failed to recover and the energy (1 J) that resulted in the pig-iron 
becoming magnetized and warmer.

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.
I agree that the energy can be stored as "vacuum energy" but I disagree that 
any *text book process* can create or destroy energy.  If you think so then you 
have not fully read the small print of the text book!

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!"
That is correct.  That is how Newton's equations are correctly applied.

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!
Sorry I don't understand your argument.  An experiment of allowing a 1kg lead 
mass travelling at 1m/s to collide with a similar stationary one so that they 
both travel away with half the velocity does not need any "air and molecules" 
for the interaction.  But in order to bring them to the same velocity a force 
between them does need to be applied.  If this force is frictional, then the 
energy obviously turns into heat.  Similarly if the force results in the lead 
being forced to change shape, then the energy appears as heat (try breaking a 
reasonable diameter steel wire by flexing it back and forth with a pair of 
pliers until it fatigues and fractures - then touch the flexed section to see 
how hot it has become!)

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.
The same interaction (one moving mass attaching to a stationary one so that 
they both move away joined) *cannot* occur elastically unless you can think of 
some mechanism to absorb the kinetic energy - such as a spring acting between 
them and a ratchet to stop the spring from pushing them apart again afterwards. 
 Then  when you do the calculation you discover that the kinetic energy loss 
has become potential energy stored in the ratcheted spring.  The energy 
spread-sheet always balances perfectly or you have made a mistake.

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'.
Your language here seems a bit unusual.  "Inelastic" is usually understood to 
be "dissipative" almost by definition - heat generation being the result of 
inelastic and dissipative mechanisms.  Mainstream physics still regards heat 
energy to be unrecoverable although there is no good reason except statistical 
ones why this should not be possible.

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.
Sorry but since you are talking of *textbook physics*, all physicists will be 
absolutely certain that you have made a simple mistake based on some conceptual 
misunderstanding.  Given the opportunity, (and if they are not fed up with 
fielding crackpot questions) they will be happy to point it out to you to save 
you from further embarrassment.

Reply via email to