ABV

Sure, the degree of freedom still exist. However, the magnetic field will reduce fluctuations on this degree of freedom. Therefore, this reduction of fluctuation on this degree of freedom will reduce the heat capacity of substance.

During magnetic spin polarization, the substance are losing one of the vibrational degree of freedom. This changes a heat capacity of substance and temperature goes up. When paramagnetic element away from magnetic field then substance are getting this vibration degree of freedom back and temperature does down. It seems like law of momentum conservation what is working on nuclear level. I'm sorry about confusion with terminology "distortion of entropy". It's unofficial name of this process. However, I like it better.

May be you right. However, polarizing of magnetic spins and decreasing an entropy inside substance won't allow to happen magnetocaloric effect. In this case the temperature will remain the same.

Looks like "distortion of entropy" confuses everybody. Based on second thermodynamic law the entropy should stay same or goes higher for isolated systems. So, when magnetic field polarize magnetic spins, then the entropy cannot be decreased for isolated systems. However, the entropy "changes its own shape" and temperature goes higher for substance with polarized magnetic spins. So, this I call it as distortion of entropy.

The magnetic field could distort entropy of substance and change its temperature. Based on this, possible build a kind of virtual demon of Maxwell, which is based on the distortion of entropy of the substance. This distortion of entropy also allow to have virtual locations with different temperature. In case with magnetocaloric effect the different temperature virtual locations is exists when observed object is present in this location. Will this machine work? This example shows machine which utilize the magnetocaloric effect This example contains a electromagnet, a paramagnetic element which connected with piston and cylinder with gas. All system is experiencing a gravity force. At initial time, based on magnetocaloric effect the electromagnet will increase temperature of paramagnetic from T1 to T2. The paramagnetic element will heat a gas which will increase its internal energy. This increase of internal energy will make a gas expansion into cylinder and the piston will remove paramagnetic element from magnetic field of the electromagnet. The temperature of the paramagnetic element will be decreased and it will start cool down the gas from temperature T2 to T1. This will reduce the gas internal energy and it will reduce a pressure of gas inside the cylinder. The piston will move into initial position and it will return the paramagnetic element into magnetic field of the electromagnet again.

Thank you for reading a problem with balloon from my blog. As I said, this problem would be easy calculate rather than ferromagnetic material into magnetic field. You're absolutely right. The calculation contains simplified conditions and these numbers are not realistic However, I would like calculate more realistic numbers for maximum height of the balloon and compare potential energy of load relative to earth and energy spent to compress the gas of balloon. I would appreciate to everyone who would help with this calculation.

Not sure if the refrigeration process could be used in this case. In refrigeration process pressure and temp have dependency to each other in equation, and energy has direct conversion in thermodynamic systems. Here, one of the system is mechanic. The temperature as energy cannot be converted into work between equilibrium states in magnetic field. Same for example with balloon volume and work in gravity field. I think, the better answer will be a solution for problem. The example about balloon with load would be simpler than ferromagnetic object into magnetic field

How change of physical property of object could initiate exchange of energy between closed systems? Could please explain it?

Two closed systems are linked to each other. Both use same object. In one of this closed systems was spent energy to change physical property of shareable object. After this object transformation, other closed system changes it's own equilibrium state. Will the work in changes between equilibrium states of one closed system equal to quantity of the spent energy in other closed system? Details, how is this looks like. https://somephysicsideas.wordpress.com/2016/01/23/switch-theory/

I'm looking for physics lab which can do special research my physics hypotheses from this site. http://knol.google.com/k/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2# I'm not physics scientist and hypotheses form this site wasn't written as scientific research document. I have a doubt about classical mechanic motion principle. The modern physics say the nature has two main translational and rotational motions with their own law of momentum conservation. My hypotheses introduces the nature has just one main rotational and translational motion with it's own law of momentum conservation and rotational motion and translational motion are part of this main motion. The modern physic says net off all translational momentums of all objects into isolated system will be a zero after repulsive action. My hypotheses says net off all translational momentums of all objects into isolated system will be a zero after repulsive action if all objects of isolated system will conduct translational motion only. If one of the object after repulsive action will conduct a translational and rotational motion then the net of all translational momentums of all objects into isolated system will not equal to zero. I made some experiment which it shown on my site. However, it is not enough to show good result without physics lab environment. I want to check it and spend some money for it and prove or disapprove this modern physics motion concept. I'm looking to physics lab which can do custom research and produce this experiment. Would it possible to do this in your lab? I would appreciate if you look into my site. Thank you

DO NOT CLOSE THIS TOPIC WITHOUT DISCUSSION! IF YOU THINK SCIENE IS RELIGION THAN I BETTER FIND ANOTHER FORUM AND I WILL BLAME THIS SITE FOREVER. http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2/1xmqm1l0s4ys/9# The experiment_2 animations This is animation based on classical mechnics laws This is animation based on theory of standalone rotation with translation movement. The Natural Experiment 2. I made 3 successful experiments with 2 pencils. On all these experiments pencils with rotation movement have lower velocity than pencils without rotation. The theory is CORRECT. The simulator is WRONG. Build and materilas. 2 pencils and thin rubberband 3.5'' from Staples store. The rubberband repulce 2 objects(2 pencils). Two their parts have opposite velocities to each other. After initial action the rubberband has velocity zero. The rubberband mass much less then pencil mass. Here is some snapshots which shows experiment dynamic. Links to experiments movies (avi files) Experiment 2_1 Experiment 2_2 Experiment 2_3 Links to experiments pictures (zip files) Experiment 2_1 Experiment 2_2 Experiment 2_3 P.S. Before say something do natural experiment first and show results please.

http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2/1xmqm1l0s4ys/9# Animated experiment 2 This is animation based on classical mechnics laws This is animation based on theory of standalon rotation with translation movement. The Nature Experiment 2. I made 3 successful experiments with 2 pencils. All these experiment shows different velocities between pencils. The theory is CORRECT. The simulator is WRONG. Here is some snapshots from experiment, which shows experiment dynamic. Links to experiments movies (avi files) Experiment 2_1 Experiment 2_2 Experiment 2_3 Links to experiments pictures (zip files) Experiment 2_1 Experiment 2_2 Experiment 2_3

D H. Just keep in mind. 2 movements. 2 trajectories. 2 acceleration2. 2 equations. and ONE force for both equations. This force must be split to rotation and translation parts. We do this miscalculation everytime because everybody did same error before. Why? Because standalone translation with rotation movement not included on classical mechanics book yet. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnother simulator glitch? Run Working Model and add rod and force into new project. Click Run on toolbar menu button The rod start moving with velocity 1.042. Stop simulation and attach motor into rods center. Torque 0 active t<0.01(IMPORTANT) Click Run on toolbar menu button The rod start rotating with velocity 0 Stop simulation and add circle with force into project. Click Run on toolbar menu button The rod start rotating with velocity 0 After collision the rod start moving. Stop simulation. Remove motor (Open properties windows. Select motor and click "Edit->Delete" submenu button) Change circle position. Click Run on toolbar menu button The rod and circle start moving with velocity 1.042 on opposite directions. After collision the rod and circle are changing directions. ==== Any comments? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The problem starts from speceship inbalance. The units problem is just a component which is multiply error.

Correct. This is classical mechanic says so. D H. I'm not a beginner of physics science. I've got some. I understand you are the one smart of the physics scientist. Because we are still talking about this idea:) Let's think logically. If an object takes acceleration on translation trajectory then this means a force applied to the object for translation movement. Correct? If an object takes acceleration on rotation trajectory then this means a force applied to the object for rotation movement. Correct? The net of these forces is resultant force which applied to the object. It's logic. The classical mechanics says - No. Force applied to the object with same values for both translation and rotation movements. However, the net of these forces is doubling resultant force. There is no logic. Why? The logic is sacrificing to law of momentum conservation for translation movement, which must work. However, the object starts 2 movements. If look back on experiment 2 then it shows how experimental rods conduct different movements. If base on classical mechanics models compare their kinetic energies and momentums then just one translation momentums have same values. This is not right. No symmetrical action. However, base on 3rd Newton's law symmetrical action must present on experiment. ==== Back to your good example about spaceships. You would probably have more information about their trajectories miscalculations relatively to center mass problem. If you would try to create a simple spaceship model which takes rotation with translation movement then the simulator is giving a wrong translation velocity result. If engine has a thrust with fixed value then no matter how spaceship rotates the translation velocity will be constant. Wrong. Practice says the spaceship with this miscalculation toward to cosmic garbage. The engineers usually build spaceships which avoid this center mass problem. This is not very friendly effects for rocket scientists. However, this effect brings new era to our civilization.

I don't see logic. Each part of force must do own job 2 Movements. Each movements has own acceleration and force. Net of these forces equal to applied to body force. For example, if apply these force separately then part of force need for translation movement and another part for rotation movement. If apply same value of initial forces for both movements then rod will have const translation velocity plus depended on applied radius angular velocity. But sum of forces values is doubling initial value. This is normal simulator behavior on wrong classical mechanics model. This is from real world:

They are. The question only HOW. If use new translation with rotation movement the momentum is conserve by this law. This movement has translation and rotation parts of momentum. If use both movement instead one. It will be P=const , L=const The difference is these two movements use same momentum. However, new movement is using just one momentum for both his movement parts. If one force applied to the body it should for one of the movement. By classical mechanics law, the movement should be chosen first. If translation then all value of force should be used for translation movement. If rotation then all value of force should be used for rotation movement. But how about if this force is starting both movement together? If it one force then it should be spit by parts. One part should be for rotation movement. Another part - for translation movement. Sum of these parts of force will be equal to full value of force. This is not covering by classical mechanics. Using regular calculations, for both movements is using same initial value of force. Sum of these parts of force is doubling initial value. This is not right. Your example with spaceship shows how engineers implement miscalculation, base on wrong classical mechanics model. It should not be 2 movements. It should be one new movement. My equation may be so empirical and need more studies about it. However, this new movement gives more understanding about nature. For example. The Dark matter. This natural phenomenon does not exist. It just miscalculation, because our physics deny situation where object can move by itself (without external forces). Correct. The object cannot move by itself. However the set of objects can do this. The law of momentum conservation of new rotation with translation movement is allowing this.

Both rods have same mass and moment of inertia. However, on experiment 2 the rotating rod has extra torque, which easy to simulate. Please look on experiment 3. This means the simulator apply extra translation force for rotation rod. Which is should not be on real world. If part of applied force spent for rotation movement (torque) then this portion of force should be removed from translation part of applied force. The sum of these rotation and translation portions of applied force should be equal to applied force for non-rotating rod. (3-rd Newton’s law) The translation velocities of these rods should be different. However, they are equal on simulator. Because simulator knows nothing about rotation with translation movement and two independent rotation and translation movements cannot describe this experiment 2 correctly. The classical mechanics should include new standalone translation with rotation movement to describe natural phenomenon correctly. This is how should be happen on real world This a movie capture from experiment 3 (simulates velocities difference) This a movie capture from experiment 2 with accurate rods alignments. Please check my site. http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2/1xmqm1l0s4ys/9# I added: Steps How to build these experiments on working model demo version.

Let's simulate these experiments. Using Workingmodel software(Thank you to François Guillet guillet.francois@wanadoo.fr for good idea) The experiment 1. This simulation shows all adeqate to theory results. Before start. Durings the experiment The experiment 2. This simulation shows all extra rotation without additional torque. Before start Durings the experiment Let's simulate same result using experiment 1 plus additional torque. Before start During the experiment As it show on pervious experiments print screens, experiment 2 and experiment with additional torque have same results. However, these experiments have different initial conditions. The red rod for experiment 2 following these equations: note: P - rod's translation momentum, mr - rod's mass, vr -rod's translation velocity, Fi - initial pulse force, ti - initial pulse force time L - rod's angular momentum, I - rod's moment of inertia, w - rod's angular velocity, R - rod's unit radius. The red rod for experiment with additional torque following these equations: note: P - rod's translation momentum, mr - rod's mass, vr -rod's translation velocity, Fi - initial pulse force, ti1 - initial pulse force, ti2 - initial torque time L - rod's angular momentum, I - rod's moment of inertia, w - rod's angular velocity, tau - torque. These experiments use different parameters for angular momentum equations. For this equation the simulator for experiment 2 uses same initial pulse force. However, for experiment with additional torque simulator uses another parameter (torque). experiment 1 + additional torque = experiment 2 Thse experiment 2 shows how simulator generate additional torque for Isolated System from initial pulse force displacement. The isolated systems for these experiments are not the same. The experiment with additional torque should not have same results as experiment 2. The experiment 2 simulation is not adequate to real world. The new rotation with translation movement should be added to classical mechanics.

Fine. I just looked on equations for angular velocities of this simulation. (Body[1].v.x*Body[1].p.y + Body[1].v.y*Body[1].p.x) / (sqr(Body[1].p.x)+sqr(Body[1].p.y)) i.e. [math]\omega=\frac{v_xS_y+v_yS_x}{\sqrt{S_x}+\sqrt{S_y}}[/math] where Vx, Vy rod's translation velocities from center mass Sx,Sy rod's distance from center mass. Units is not accurate for this equations. The angular velocity should equal to [math]\omega=\frac{V}{R}[/math] If calculate velocities sum vector dividing to the distance then it should be: [math]\omega=\frac{\sqrt{V_x^2+V_y^2}}{\sqrt{S_x^2+S_y^2}}[/math] Parameters for this simulation gives zero to total angular if reverse one of velocity value. However, these rods displacement from center mass base on these equations gives total angular momentum more or less zero. If use another equation like [math]\omega=\frac{\sqrt{V_x^2+V_y^2}}{\sqrt{S_x^2+S_y^2}}[/math] then total angular mometum is striving to zero. This equations are not adequate for angulal momentum calculation. ==== As I see on simulator, just one of rod has angular momentum. Another rod has nothing. The question "how total kinetic energy for rotating rod growth from nothing?" is still open.

The simulator program got a glitch. The TOTAL ANGUAL MOMENTM is changing during the experiment. from: to:

Really? 2 equations. one for translation [math]\mathbf F[/math] another for rotation [math] \aligned \mathbf F &= m\mathbf a \\ \boldsymbol{\tau} &= \mathbf r \times \mathbf F = \boldsymbol I\,\frac{d}{dt} \boldsymbol{\omega} + \boldsymbol{\omega}\times (\boldsymbol I \boldsymbol{\omega}) \endaligned[/math] Is this F same force for both equations? Or different? Could these equations describe experiment 2? My opinion: Тhis F is different force for these 2 equations. This equations may describe experiment 2 only if this force F is different. One force needs for body's translation movement. Another force needs for body's rotation movement. Both will be apply to body. If describe more details. These 2 forces initially will apply to body with same direction. When body changed position, the force for angular rotation will apply with small angle, which will increase during body’s rotation from 0 to 90 degree. This rotation force will change value following by [math]\cos \alpha [/math]. If use constant net force then translation and angular forces are variable. Their sum should be equal to constant net force. If use variable net force then only angular force may be variable. The translation force can be constant. Their sum should be equal to the net force. Base on this forces behavior easy to make a model Anyway it won't bring initial momentum to same value translation momentum plus extra angular momentum from nowhere Part of initial momentum should going to body's angular momentum part. As it described before. Nothing never come from nowhere Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPicture with program glitch details:

Ok. How this linear momentum to angular momentum contribution works? Just add rotation from nothing? 2 movements. Each of them should have own initial momentum. According to classical mechanics 2 movements cannot start from same momentum. To solve this problem needs to define another standalone rotation with translation movement and describe his law of momentum conservation. This is what I did.

You're still thinking in classical mechanics existing laws. This is the problem. Even simulator got the glitch and you're still argue about my missunderstading. This is so funny Angular and translation movements are not same thing. They not correlate to each other. If body starts rotating then it won't be change body's translation movement. However, body can start translation and rotation movement from one hit (momentum). Good example - experiment 2. It's possible to make these equations: P=m2*v2=m1*v1 L=I*w=m1*v1*R However, it won't describe experiment 2. It describes 2 movements. One is translation. Another one is rotation. These 2 movements cannot use same momentum m1*v1. It's wrong. These 2 equations describe 2 unrelated movements and they should use 2 independent momentums. To solve this problem for experiment 2, please look on my site. http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2/1xmqm1l0s4ys/9#

Base on this theory http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2/1xmqm1l0s4ys/9# Simulator got this glitch. Is it discovery? ... Hi Alex, I'm not sure to understand all what you mean and may be I'm wrong on some points. So here is my simulation to clarify the problem (a hard work : http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Experiences/Meca/Momentum/com.wm2d If you have not Workingmodel software (it is free), here is the video (6Mb, probably long to download): http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Experiences/Meca/Momentum/com.avi Here are 3 jpg snapshots. N�0 is the initial position. N�1 is the state just after the pulse. N�2 is some seconds later. http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Experiences/Meca/Momentum/com0.jpg http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Experiences/Meca/Momentum/com1.jpg http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Experiences/Meca/Momentum/com2.jpg The speed vector of each rod is displayed in the animation. The impulse force it not displayed. It provides 100 N during 0.01s between the rods, at points of same coordinates (= the position of the center of mass of the green rod). In the red and green small windows, you can monitor the speeds, kinetic energies and momenta of each rod. The default equations of the program are used. In the small blue windows, I have put the equations to obtain the angular speed, the moment of inertia and the angular momentum of each rod, calculated from the common center of mass of the system. This center of mass is displayed in the simulation (it is calculated by the program, it's not a fixed point. It is at rest because there is no external force acting onto the system. It is the mid-point of the line joining the centers of mass of the two rods). To simplify the calculi, the positions of the rods are chosen in order the common center of mass to be at position x,y = 0,0. With this simulation, I have discovered that from the common center of mass C, each rod possesses a "hidden" angular momentum: each rod flies horizontally away one another but one is above and the other under the horizontal x axis containing their common center of mass. Thus the angle delimited by the horizontal x axis and the line joining the centers of mass of the two rods (crossing at C), decreases when the distance of the rods from the origin increases. This variation of the angle is to be considered as an angular velocity. Then from it, we can calculate the moment of inertia of each rod and its angular momentum. The result is displayed in the small blue windows. IMPORTANT : We see that the sum of the angular momenta of the two rods, calculated in the referential frame of their common center of mass, is equal but with opposite sign, to the angular momentum of the only rotating rod, calculated in its proper frame. Thus by adding these two momenta, we find zero. I guess the key of the problem lies around this, but it is not yet completely clear for me. Fran�ois

Another version: My assumption this movement have a linear and angular momentums together. The full momentum of rotation with translation movement is: note: Pj - linear momentum Lk - angular momentum Ru - unit radius This is the law of momentum conservation for the translation with rotation movement: This movement has 2 movement components. A rotation and a translation parts. How are correlating translation and angular momentum parts to full momentum? This picture shows a simple rotating body diagram. All mass of rotation body concentrate on unit radius Ru. An initial momentum hit body on distance h from their center mass. Knowing moment of inertia equal to then Let's assume this part of momentum goes to angular part: Then angualr momentum equal to: Then translation momentum equal to: Lets sum these parts and check full momentum: Follow law of momentum conservation for translation with rotation momentum, the cylinders translation velocities have a different value on experiment 2. The velocities equal to: ====== Base on previous statement it possible to say the translation with rotation movement is covering translation and rotation movements together. One of these movements is the simple version of main complicated movement.