Building a self looping "SMOT"

[LibreEnergia]

Below is a rough sketch of the energy transfer between the ball,and ramp-and i mean only rough.
But it will give you an idea as to where most of our potential energy is being lost in our ball.It also shows the direction of the energy left,that has to get our ball out of the magnetic field of the ramp.
Although it might look wrong,we must believe it is right,as every action has an equal and OPPOSITE reaction-and you will see that the green arrows are opposite to the red one's,and equal in length(roughly)The same go's for force applied-every force applied must have an opposite force of an equal amout. So from the pic,things just dont look to good for our ball,as most of the energy left is not going in the direction we want.So we can asume that a ramp setup like this,would result in a large loss of potential energy within the ball.

Edit-missed one green arrow,but you get the picture.

If you are going to try and produce any kind of convincing analysis then you would be wise to use the generally accepted terminology and usage when discussing Newtonian mechanics. Otherwise it just makes your explanation look totally meaningless . (Which it is).

Firstly, energy is a scalar quantity. It does NOT have a direction associated with it. 

What you have drawn is an estimation of the FORCES acting on the ball.

The ball only has 'energy' due to it either moving (kinetic energy) or having potential to move (gravitational and/or magnetic potential energy).

[Michael Q Shaw]

Sounds to me like you are claiming to know more than the professors who wrote the textbooks and equations.

I'm not a professor, but I know what I know because I studied the works of others, not "somehow". The process is very definite, intensive, years long, costly, reviewed and assessed by peers and superiors along the way. It's called a "university education". Very different from "somehow".

You do realize, I hope, that a spacecraft undergoing a gravitational slingshot is in _free fall_ the whole time. If you were aboard it, with no windows, you would never even feel it, you'd be floating the whole time in zero-g. Pretty funny way for a "force doing work" to act.

I am not claiming to be smarter than or any better than anyone, nor even professors, its just hard to get anyone to listen to your point of view, or new ideas.  Please consider according to information available at Wikipedia, a hammer is just a force amplifier which works by converting mechanical work into kinetic energy and back (the energy still comes from your arm and you.)

Based on the equations, it took a predetermined amount of fuel/propellant to lift the mass of the rocket carrying the Juno spacecraft against the force of gravity out into space then to break free from the Earth's gravity and then for it to travel to a certain velocity.  Once that fuel/propellant was spent, in order to increase this velocity, even in the low friction vacuum of space requires more fuel/propellant to be spent.  Juno used the gravity sling-shot to increase its velocity without burning more fuel/propellants to do so.  Was more fuel spent?  If it was, was it spent to increase its velocity or only to maintain direction and for control?  So, Yes, the increase in velocity was accomplished by a gravity sling shot effect...means gravity produced work, the same effect as burning more fuel/propellants.

[LibreEnergia]

///So, Yes, the increase in velocity was accomplished by a gravity sling shot effect...means gravity produced work, the same effect as burning more fuel/propellants.

NO. Gravity did not produce net work.  The total energy of the combined earth/Juno system was the same both before and after the slingshot.

What happened is the earth was slowed down and the spacecraft sped up.  Kinetic energy of the earth was lowered and the kinetic energy of Juno was increased by the same amount.

Energy in the system remained the same.

[Michael Q Shaw]

NO. Gravity did not produce net work.  The total energy of the combined earth/Juno system was the same both before and after the slingshot.

What happened is the earth was slowed down and the spacecraft sped up.  Kinetic energy of the earth was lowered and the kinetic energy of Juno was increased by the same amount.

Energy in the system remained the same.

So you are telling me that no work is done unless fuel is consumed, got it.

[TinselKoala]

 

Please consider according to information available at Wikipedia, a hammer is just a force amplifier which works by converting mechanical work into kinetic energy and back.

This is exactly what _you_ need to consider. The gravitational slingshot transfers momentum from the Earth to the spacecraft. Gravity does work on the craft on the way in, and does "negative work" on the way out, and since the spacecraft is NOT doing a closed loop but is sent off in a different direction, with the additional momentum given it, you are no longer making a closed path all within a conservative field of force.  If you close the path into an elliptical orbit, then the system does just what is predicted: gravity does no net work, the orbit can be stable and last... well... a long long time, since no energy is being subtracted or added during the long falls in and the long climbs out. A closed path in a conservative force field is "net work zero". As you are discovering with your SMOT experimentation, because superposing two conservative fields doesn't change anything. Since there is no input of extra work other than what you provide by bringing the ball into position initially, and you can't eliminate losses... your SMOT can't work.

The idea that "gravity does no net work" applies to the closed path within the field: the SMOT. A gravitational slingshot system is not a closed path so there can be net work done. But you can't get to where you can do this, without first getting to a position of greatly _negative_ GPE and this takes an input of work from some other source: your chemical rockets.

Have you yet grasped the reason that PE is _negative_  and the position of zero PE is arbitrary?