Of course you didn't mention Noether's theorem before because it says that in systems that aren't time invariant energy is not conserved.
Has that principle ever been applied to magnetic circuits?
It applies to everything involving electromagnetics, including circuits. If you can write down a Lagrangian for your system then you can apply Noether's theorem to see if there are any conserved quantities.
It's little more than a homework exercise in quantum field theory to use gauge theory with a U(1) symmetry to construct the Maxwell tensor, derive Maxwell's equations, charge conservation and provided your original Lagrangian had the same symmetries then you can construct the electromagnetic versions of energy and momentum conservation because the Lagrangian built from the Maxwell tensor is Lorentz invariant.
Don't come here whining about things if you haven't bothered to first check.
For someone with a Phd I find you tone deaf.
Wow, 3 posts and you've got me all figured out? I'm sorry that you lack the basic understanding and information to do the analysis yourself but its not my fault. Strangely enough its not my job to prove someone with a "I've got an over unity machine!" claim false, its their job to prove their claim true. That's how the burden of proof works, it is on those making the claim. Since every single system in the history of science has
not been over unity the onus is on the person claiming they have one to demonstrate it. I have other science I have to do, lest my employer wonder what they are paying me for.
Steorn put a very system device to show a principle.
And they have yet to even show it works as claimed.
You should be able to study their device and then attack their device specifically for how it operates. Instead you show no knowledge of their device or the physical principle behind it.
They claim to have a device which contradicts all we know about electromagnetism and thermodynamics. The onus is not on me to go through their work with a fine tooth comb. You don't seem to understand how science works.
How electric motor/generators have you ever seen that use a trick to have no back EMf force? Have you seen that before??? Where??
I don't have to have seen any because I can tell you from electromagnetism you can't get around the energy conservation. As such it would mean that Steorn has disproven Maxwell's work, because it is
impossible for their work to be consistent with it. That's the beauty of such things as a Lagrangian formalism, to answer some questions you don't even have to specify the machine in question, because
any machine which works by Maxwell's equations will not do as Steorn claim.
And before we go down the road of "Well you're just afraid of new ideas" if someone came to me and said "I have cast iron proof that electromagnetism doesn't always obey Maxwell's equations" and then demonstrated it in a laboratory I'd give my left leg to coauthor the paper with them because it would be
HUGE. Nobel Prize winning huge. It's the kind of thing every physicist dreams of doing, finding something new in something so fundamental.
But Steorn haven't done that.
All I have seen you say is those guys are quacks, those are
They take large quantities of investors money and produce nothing of worth. They don't produce publications on "We've found the following discrepancy in electromagnetic models" and then once its been verified use that to justify investment, they just say "Give us money". Now I can understand the importance of playing your cards close to your chest, the company I work for do precisely that when we do new science or maths, but we'd
never call a press conference to show a device we weren't absolutely sure was based on found science and we'd tested until the cows came home. Excuses like "The lights were too hot" are laughable. You test the machine in the conditions it'll be displayed in! How hard is that to realise?
If you are so smart and have your Phd and so forth why do you fail to make a scientific argument that shows how their claim is false?
Thermodynamics, Noether's theorem and electromagnetics are scientific arguments. Every single thing we've seen in the universe adheres to those scientific principles and thus when they are put on the table the onus is on Steorn to show, clearly and repeatable, that one or more of them is incorrect. They haven't done that.
The same was said about the Wright brothers from people like you wearing their Phd on their sleeves and now we see how clever they were.
Can you demonstrate that? Or are you just trying to think of some inventors you can claim were dismissed?
While I thought that Steorn was full of it when I first heard of it, I had the intellectual honesty to study and research what they were saying and what they put in exhibition. I think now they have something.
Can you provide the material you found through 'study and research' which convinced you? I don't accept press releases, models based on unverified physics, simple assertions or anything which hasn't been submitted and cleared by peer review. If you can provide something which doesn't boil down to Steorn saying "Take our word for it" that'd be great.
Well enough of my opinion let's hear more unscientific rants from the Phds
Sounds like you've got a chip on your shoulder. You first started with the insults "You're all arm chair physicists" and when it turns out some of us aren't you then try to insult me for having a PhD. Yes, insulting me because I could put in years of effort to learn, understand and then help develop an area of science is
really going to work. You're just clutching at straws, looking for any insult you can.
is to analyze what Steorn has claimed and what was presented.
What have they presented which can be analysed? If there's something which is detailed and methodical is it in a journal? If not why haven't they submitted it to a journal, if they are so sure about it? Journals are there to do precisely what you want us to do, review the claims. Journals want people to submit ground breaking work, it means they make more money. If the material is there for me to examine its there for journals to examine, it only needs to be submitted. Then it'll be reviewed by people whose specific interest is this kind of stuff. I never said my PhD was in this stuff, you just assumed it. You accused people of being armchair physicists and I refuted that.
Tell me, if you were willing to try to insult people here for being arm chair physicists then what are
your physics related credentials? Do you have any? If not then you're an arm chair physicist too. If you do have some can we conclude from your comments about my PhD that you think your qualifications are worthless?