The law of conservation of energy proven invalid in this test

[Semjase]

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?

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

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.

[Semjase]

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?

[swansont]

Yes: your analysis is wrong.

[Semjase]

This will make an interesting experiment.

[Spyman]

Good luck with finding a gravity free environment to experiment in.

[D H]

How do you stand something up right in a gravity free environment? What does that even mean?

[Semjase]

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.

[Klaynos]

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.

[Semjase]

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.

 

[D H]

Patent it then, or try to. Good luck with that. You'll need it.

[Semjase]

No I'm just interested in bringing to the

attention of mainstream science.

[Spyman]

I video demonstration is not considered experimental proof and as such I don't think you will draw much scientific attention with it.

[Tres Juicy]

The video is a fake, there are hundreds of them on youtube

[Semjase]

I guess this video is fake as well.

 

 

 

[ACG52]

Yes, by the same guy.

[Tres Juicy]

It's really not hard to fake a youtube video

 

[swansont]

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.

[Semjase]

Why isn't this device shown below accepted

the world over?

 

[Klaynos]

Why isn't this device shown below accepted

the world over?

Because it's a con?

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

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..

[Semjase]

I didn't make it, it doesn't look fake why would someone bother?

Build it and find out.

[Phi for All]

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!

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

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..

[SamBridge]

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?