Gravity magnetic lever wheel working in WM2D (could this work in reality!)

[exnihiloest]

On the contrary, it does. The energy produced is more than the energy spent. SMOT violates the principle of conservation of energy and discontinuously produces energy from nothing.

If there had energy violation in a smot, a looped smot could easily be built. No looped smot, no proof of energy violation. I'm an experimenter with an engineer background, I tried myself but failed as others. And from those claiming OU in a smot when they have not looped one, I have even never seen any serious energy measurements, including the potential magnetic energy at the start and end positions.

I'm sorry for this philosophical digression but I think claims without facts put FE research into a religious domain, remove its credibility and are a terrible handicap for all of us involved in FE because they give too many bad tracks. OU in a smot, or Jesus walking on the water, are similar irrationnal claims until strong experimental proofs to be given. I'm a scientist not a bigot; smot is a possible OU device as anything else (may be Steorn will give us the solution). Scientific method must be applied to prove it is. We have not yet a strong evidence it is, and imho not even a little.
Let's keep enthusiasts but lucid too, it's just my point of view.  :-)

Fran?ois

[Omnibus]

Not so. Building a looped SMOT is only an engineering problem. The fact that this engineering problem has not found a solution yet cannot serve as a proof that SMOT doesn?t produce excess energy and that it doesn?t violate the principle of conservation of energy.

Indeed, Take a look at http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif  (if the link doesn?t open try clicking on Go in the address line and then Reload). The energy the researcher spends to raise the ball from A to B is

Energy_spent = ?mgh1 +(Ma ? Mb).

The ball returns spontaneously along the B-C-A portion of the loop the enegy:

Energy_obtained = +mgh1 +Mb = +mgh1 + mgh2 + (KE1 +RE2 +L1)

Where KE1 is the kinetic energy of the ball at C, RE1 is the rotational energy at C and L1 are the other energy losses at C. At point B? (not shown in the figure) the ball loses the height h2 and, respectively, loses its entire gravitational potential energy +mgh2 which at B? is transformed into [KE2 + RE2 +L2 + Mb?] where Mb? is the magnetic potential energy at point B? where the ball loses the height h2 (respectively, where the ball lose its entire +mgh2). Lumping the above terms together we get:

Energy_obtained = +mgh1 + [KE + RE +L] + Mb?

Therefore,

Energy_obtained ? Energy_spent = +mgh1 + [KE + RE +L] + Mb? - |?mgh1 +(Ma ? Mb)| = [KE + RE +L] +Mb? +Ma ?Mb > 0

Which is in violation of the principe of conservation of energy. The excess energy [KE + RE +L] +Mb? +Ma ?Mb produced has no source and is energy from nothing.

[exnihiloest]

...
Energy_obtained ââ,¬â€œ Energy_spent = +mgh1 + [KE + RE +L] + Mbââ,¬â,,¢ - |ââ,¬â€œmgh1 +(Ma ââ,¬â€œ Mb)| = [KE + RE +L] +Mbââ,¬â,,¢ +Ma ââ,¬â€œMb > 0

Which is in violation of the principe of conservation of energy. The excess energy [KE + RE +L] +Mbââ,¬â,,¢ +Ma ââ,¬â€œMb produced has no source and is energy from nothing.

Thanks for the equations, Omnibus. Nevertheless Check Energy_obtained, there is a flaw, Ma should be present.

There is a much simpler calculus.

Imagine there is no magnet. For the ball to go from A to A under the action of a force, it doesn't depend on the path as it is closed. The energy spent is nul: E_spent = int(F.dL)=0 on a closed path (in fact there are the losses).

Thus we have only to account for the magnetic potential energy.
From A to B : Ma-Mb
from B to C : Mb-Mc
from C to A : Mc-Ma
thus the sum is also nul.

But as there are the losses, the ball will stop.

You can't use conventional physics equations to prove smot is OU because physics says work is neither provided nor needed to move between two equipotential points in static fields, a fortiori when the start point is also the end point.

If smot is OU then it defies the laws of physics or involves hidden phenomenon and this can be proved only by clear experiments such as a perpetual motion.

[Omnibus]

Thanks for the equations, Omnibus. Nevertheless Check Energy_obtained, there is a flaw, Ma should be present.

No, that?s incorrect.

Thus we have only to account for the magnetic potential energy.
From A to B : Ma-Mb
from B to C : Mb-Mc

Corect. This is the spontaneously returned energy.

from C to A : Mc-Ma
thus the sum is also nul.

The sum will be null if you can explain who has supplied the above energy to bring the ball back to A? The ball cannot spontaneously rise from the minimum of its potential energy Mc to the maximum of its potential energy Ma. Even if you try to invoke elastic collision I?ll remind you that you yourself mentioned losses and the collision is not by any means ideally elastic:

But as there are the losses, the ball will stop.

Therefore, the energy +Ma needed to bring the ball back to its initial position is energy which doesn?t have a source, that is, it is energy from nothing.

You can't use conventional physics equations to prove smot is OU because physics says work is neither provided nor needed to move between two equipotential points in static fields, a fortiori when the start point is also the end point. If smot is OU then it defies the laws of physics or involves hidden phenomenon and this can be proved only by clear experiments such as a perpetual motion.

On the contrary, you can, as seen in my derivation. Yours is a common misconception regarding the equations of conventional physics. The common understanding of the law whose full name is ?law of conservation and transformation of energy? concerns usually its ?transformation? part, that is, when energy is available it can be transformed in other types of energy whose sum must be equivalent to the initial amount. This is what conventional physics bases all of its derivations on. Validity of this part of the law of conservation of energy is assumed in my derivation.

It is seen from my derivation, however, that when two conservative fields are properly overlaid the resulting field is non-conservative and energy can be produced from nothing.

[Charlie_V]

Wow, its a full blown debate!!!!  Lets get the banjo music playing.... aah there we go.

Firstly, Jesus did walk on water, which is nothing related to a SMOT.  Jesus' water walk came after he had risen from the dead, he was no longer human but a spirit.  Spirits can do amazing things - I have seen them (being spirits, not Jesus haha) first hand and watched them manipulate objects.  There is definitely something beyond our life here on earth.... and if you don't believe that, you'll find out sooner or later. 

Secondly, SMOTs will not work, exnihiloest is right.  I will slightly agree with Omnibus, there is an increase in energy, during the ball's acceleration.  Unfortunately, everything that the ball gains is lost when it reaches the "sticky point" as they say.  The only way to get around the "sticky point" is to be able to turn the magnet off - which you can't.  That is the simplest answer, of course you can use the math to prove it too.  Basically, you place the ball at a higher potential.  The magnetic field accelerates it, but then takes back the energy it gave when the ball attempts to leave the field. 

I still do not understand why science calls magnetic fields "potential" energy.  It is stored energy, but NOT in the form of potential.  It is stored as kinetic.  Its the same thing as a quantum fly wheel.  In a circuit a magnetic field is ONLY seen when the charges are moving.  Moving energy is kinetic, not potential.  An electric field is potential, since the charge is static and not moving. 

To further my point, when kinetic energy is changed, what happens?  The energy is transitioned to potential (assuming it is not used) like what happens in the simple case of a pendulum.  This is also seen in circuits, when you change a magnet's field (usually by moving the magnet), an open circuit coil response by creating a potential difference between it's end points - just as a pendulum's kinetic energy is transitioned to potential when the ball reaches its maximum height. 

This led me to a very interesting paradox.  If a permanent magnet is the equivalent of a fly wheel, then why when you alter its field does it not loose flux?  In simplified terms, when you generate electricity in a coil, using a magnet, why doesn't the flux of the magnet reduce?  If you took a spinning fly wheel with ultra low friction bearings and had a clutch system to engage it to a load, the stored energy would decrease when the load was attached.  This does not happen in the electrical analogy.