What's wrong with that device (potential energy) ?

[dxtx]

rustot писал(а):

Try to extract from this device smallest possible element, where work of external forces is not equal to energy change. Current descrition is just puzzle "find cat on this big picture"

It is a device with pressures like molecules of water can do with gravity in a glass of water. I can't separate one molecule of water and calculate the pressure. And I found a device where I use the same method and the sum of energy is well at 0. You don't understand the device ?

NB: To simplify the calculation, I suppose the force of the springs like a constant, don't depend of the length F=k not kx (with x the length of the spring).

[Munin]

dxtx
You're just doing the wrong thing.

You know about the law of conservation of energy.
Yet you try to make up some device that should violate it.
You make it strange and obscure, and thus you confuse yourself. You cannot understand why it wouldn't work.

But you cannot violate the law. It is simple and basic, and it has a clear proof, and it will work the same way in any device.
You can confuse yourself, but you cannot confuse the law.
Better you should study the law itself, and its proof, and a number of simple examples of its work.
Then you would understand it better, and step by step you will learn how to apply it to more complex devices.

[dxtx]

Цитата:

You know about the law of conservation of energy. Yet you try to make up some device that should violate it.

Yes, because Noether proved the conservation of energy if the potential energy is conserved. There is a condition of the law.

[rustot]

Law of conversation of energy can prove wrong in comparison with reality, but only together with another laws of mechanics.

While used unmodified laws of mechanics in all calculation, You can get the result as conversation law violation only via aripmetic error

[Munin]

dxtx в сообщении #1198503 писал(а):

There is a condition of the law.

If you break a condition, then no problem again. Only you should clearly see where the condition is broken in a proposed device.
If you don't break it, see paragraph 1.

[dxtx]

Цитата:

Only you should clearly see where the condition is broken in a proposed device.

The equation of the device is : X-d=Y-d+W+e and the value X-d is equal to the value Y-d+W. 'e' is not equal to 0. If I'm right the potential energy of the device increases more due to 'e'. And if I'm right the law of conservation of the energy is broken. But only if I'm right,...and I'm not sure, at least if someone could help me to find the error.

[Munin]

dxtx в сообщении #1198547 писал(а):

The equation of the device is

There is no such thing as 'the equation of the device'.

What is you background in physics? Do you know the Soviet-Russian school course?

[dxtx]

Цитата:

What is you background in physics?

I have an Агреже in electric field+electronic+automation, not physics because I don't have mechanics, I have an engineer diploma programming and production theory too. I have a baccalauréat in maths, physics and mechanics. I like to find leaks in systems (a hobby) and find a way to create the energy is a part of I'm looking for. I know it is not possible it is like the Арденны not possible to go across like french army believed (WWII).

[Munin]

So your degrees and diplomas are just void. Because you don't understand the meaning of the word 'impossible'. In maths it has not the same meaning than in war.

[dxtx]

Where in maths, there is a proof it is not possible to increase the potential energy of a device without supplying any other energy ? Noether takes that for an hypothesis. And I'm not sure that device is a Lagrangian.

[Pphantom]

Тема перемещена из форума «Помогите решить / разобраться (Ф)» в форум «Пургаторий (Ф)»
Причина переноса: It's the flame without physical content.

[Munin]

dxtx в сообщении #1198627 писал(а):

Noether takes that for an hypothesis.

No.

dxtx в сообщении #1198627 писал(а):

And I'm not sure that device is a Lagrangian.

There's no reason for it to be not.