Semjase Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Einstien was wrong energy can be created or destroyed. This is a simple apparatus that will prove this. You set the apparatus on the x y z axis. An input shaft, connected perpendicularly a 1 meter straight collapsable arm that has a negligible diameter frictionless wheel on the end, is placed parallel to the z axis. The arm where it is connected the shaft is at .707 meters on the +x axis and the y axis acts as a wall where the wheel rests at .707 meters on the + y axis and the arm is at a 45 degree angle with respect to the x axis. 1 n meter torque is applied to the input shaft that is rotated 15 degrees and the arm is now at 30 degrees and the arm has also collapsed to .8165 meters in length and the wheel resting on the +y axis wall is located at .4082 meters on the + y axis and the position of the shaft remains constant at .707 on the x axis. A simple vector analysis will show the work done collasping the arm .1835 meters is greater than the work put into the 15 degrees of rotation of the input shaft. A most simple elementary analysis will prove that minimum force collapsing the arm will be a minimum of 2 newtons the minimum output work will be 2*.1835 = .367 J. The minimum input work is 1* pi/12 = .2618 J. Energy was created here anyone care to prove otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Given the internal consistency of classical mechanics (and mathematics), I can say with confidence that if your conclusion is that your analysis shows that energy is not conserved, then your analysis is wrong. Further, because of that internal consistency, a thought experiment can never show energy to be not conserved (or a violation of relativity, or whatever). It must be an actual, physical experiment. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semjase Posted December 11, 2012 Author Share Posted December 11, 2012 I already have it doesn't work, but this example does you take cone in a gravity free environment stand it up right then you have a metal ring in contact with with the cone revolving like a wheel rolling around the circumference of cone parallel to its base. The ring is set in motion around the cone at 1 m/s at a radius of 2 m the ring is allowed to freely change speed angularly as the ring is moved upward and inward to a radius of 1 m. The key to this is that rolling ring does not produce any centrifugal force when moving circularly around the cone. This is proven by the fact that a rolling ring is always accelerating and decelerating each part of the ring from 0 m/s to 0 m/s so therefore the net force exerted by the ring is zero. Therefore you can move the ring inward with no force, since the law of conservation of angular momentum applies the cone will act as a stator causing the ring to speed up as it's moved inward. This proven by the fact the stator effect is caused by the a segment of the ring is accelerated from a larger radius of the cone to decelerated with the same force to a smaller radius of the cone, therefore producing a net accelerating effect on the ring. Hence you an increase of energy with virtually no input energy. Any feedback? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Yes: your analysis is wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semjase Posted December 11, 2012 Author Share Posted December 11, 2012 This will make an interesting experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyman Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Good luck with finding a gravity free environment to experiment in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 How do you stand something up right in a gravity free environment? What does that even mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semjase Posted December 11, 2012 Author Share Posted December 11, 2012 This experiment can be conducted in a gravitational environment except when your moving the ring upward and inward your doing work against gravity, then when slow the rings motion to a stop at the top of the cone extracting net energy out of the ring, you have to drop the stationary ring to the bottom of the cone recovering the work done against gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I'm more concerned about the frictionless components than the gravity issue. So, in summary, your analysis is wrong and the setup unphysical. Any conclusion is therefore invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semjase Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 I finally have proof of conservation of energy being violated, experimental proof. If anyone says that energy is conserved in this video demonstration is not entirely rational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Patent it then, or try to. Good luck with that. You'll need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semjase Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 No I'm just interested in bringing to the attention of mainstream science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyman Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I video demonstration is not considered experimental proof and as such I don't think you will draw much scientific attention with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 The video is a fake, there are hundreds of them on youtube Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semjase Posted December 13, 2012 Author Share Posted December 13, 2012 I guess this video is fake as well. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Yes, by the same guy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 It's really not hard to fake a youtube video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 It's really not hard to fake a youtube video And furthermore, mainstream science is already aware of this capability, so there's no need to draw our attention to it. But thanks anyway, Semjase. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semjase Posted January 12, 2013 Author Share Posted January 12, 2013 Why isn't this device shown below accepted the world over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Why isn't this device shown below accepted the world over? Because it's a con? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Przemyslaw.Gruchala Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 You should make these devices - cost of production I bet is less than 10 usd looking at them.. Did you make them? Otherwise you don't even KNOW if they work. You just saw video. If it's so easy, they should work straight away.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semjase Posted January 12, 2013 Author Share Posted January 12, 2013 I didn't make it, it doesn't look fake why would someone bother? Build it and find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 I didn't make it, it doesn't look fake why would someone bother? So they can get people like you to invest in building it, or sponsoring their fake video of it. And when it doesn't work, they'll tell you they're very close to success and you just need to give them more money. Build it and find out. OK. Send me US$10,000 and I'll make us both RICH! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Przemyslaw.Gruchala Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 So they can get people like you to invest in building it, or sponsoring their fake video of it. And when it doesn't work, they'll tell you they're very close to success and you just need to give them more money. I heard that YouTube pays $1 per 1000 viewers. Some of these devices were viewed by couple million people.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 An electron absorbs a photon and stays at a higher energy level. Isn't the photon "destroyed" in the process? An anti matter virtual particle pair spontaneously appears. Isn't matter and energy being created and then also destroyed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now