Mervace Working Magnetic motor using induction feedback

[Omnibus]

@Adzoe,

This is incorrect:

?Here's a simple test.  Calculate the pull when a ball is placed at the beginning of a SMOT.  Energy is consumed placing it there.  Let the ball exit the SMOT into a track and run until it stops.  Now replace the SMOT with a ramp or other device that carries equal potential energy.  See which one rolls farther.?

I apologize for posting text which is not directly connected with the topic of discussion but there is no other way to back up my statement above. Besides, in the long run it is connected with the discussion at hand. Here it goes:

Perpetual motion machine of the first kind is closely connected to the first law of thermodynamics which follows from the principle of conservation of energy. Even one of the statements of the first law of thermodynamics is: Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible.

However, it was found recently that there are conditions at which the principle of conservation of energy can be violated. For instance in Naudin?s experiment:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm

it is immediately clear that while in the control experiment (drop from the input) the spent energy is (?mgh1) while the returned energy is R1 in the SMOT experiment (drop from the output) the spent energy is less, (-mgh1+Mb), while the returned energy is more, that is R2 > R1. Thus, in SMOT for even less input energy we get more returned energy than in the trivial (control) experiment.

The really definitive conclusion, however, regarding the violation of the energy conservation principle in SMOT is obtained by the analysis of the experiment shown in

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847

sketched schematically in

http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif

In this experiment a researcher lifts the ball from point A to point B after which the ball spontaneously travels along B-C-A until closing the entire A-B-C-A loop. The net change of the magnetic potential energy when closing the A-B-C-A loop is zero (and that is the most detrimental for this argument condition). Nevertheless, the returned gravitational energy (+mgh1 +mgh2) is greater than the gravitational potential energy (-mgh1) spent. This is in violation of the principle of conservation of energy. Furthermore, the magnetic potential energy ?Ma spent could not have come from any energy reservoir, therefore, there is also excess magnetic potential energy +Ma produced which further reinforces the violation of the principle. Thus, when closing the A-B-C-A loop the excess energy produced is:

Enet = +mgh2 +Ma > 0

which is in clear violation of the principle of conservation of energy.

Violation of the principle of conservation of energy occurs only in certain circumstances whereby favorable overlapping of conservative fields occurs and these fields can mutually assist each other for parts of the loop (turning these fields into non-conservative ones). These conditions are to be specially sought and studied so that principally new energy sources can be created.

Although, due to the above findings, the principle of conservation of energy should not be considered any more as a principle of general validity it should be said that the mentioned violation does not affect most of what is already known in thermodynamics; especially where the mentioned favorable overlapping of conservative fields is not present.

[Adzoe]

You started the off-topic discussion by introducing SMOT here.

Now, as to your "proof"--

In the Naudin example you fail to include in your calculation (as does he) the energy necessary to place the ball into the position of potential energy at the beginning of the track.

No one questions that magnetic attraction occurs.  For a comparable experiment one would need to add at the point where the SMOT begins a potential gravity energy equal to the potential of the magnetic field.  The calculation necessary is the ounces of pull in the SMOT compared to the acceleration of gravity. We would do this by raising the beginning point to a level of equal potential energy minus the loss of the upward slope.

If you conduct this test you will discover that the ball will roll even farther than when it went through the SMOT.  Of course, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" so I doubt this explanation will have much effect on your opinion.

In your second sample (the SMOT video) you again fail to consider the energy expended in placing the ball in the potential energy at the beginning of the SMOT device.  There is no evidence of OU in either of your proof examples.  All you have really shown is that the magnetic field in the SMOT is greater than the acceleration of gravity in the slight altitude lift of your examples.

The ramp is a well known mode for reducing the momentary force necessary to lift a weight by distributing the lift over a longer distance.  This is all your SMOT device really accomplishes.

[Omnibus]

@Adzoe, you wrote:

?In the Naudin example you fail to include in your calculation (as does he) the energy necessary to place the ball into the position of potential energy at the beginning of the track.?

No, I don?t. Please read again what I said and try to understand it.

?No one questions that magnetic attraction occurs.  For a comparable experiment one would need to add at the point where the SMOT begins a potential gravity energy equal to the potential of the magnetic field.  The calculation necessary is the ounces of pull in the SMOT compared to the acceleration of gravity. We would do this by raising the beginning point to a level of equal potential energy minus the loss of the upward slope.?

Not so. The control experiment must be done the way Naudin does it. Again, please see Naudin?s video again and try to understand what he has done and then read my explanation.

?In your second sample (the SMOT video) you again fail to consider the energy expended in placing the ball in the potential energy at the beginning of the SMOT device.  There is no evidence of OU in either of your proof examples.  All you have really shown is that the magnetic field in the SMOT is greater than the acceleration of gravity in the slight altitude lift of your examples.?

Absolutely not. You have not understood my argument.

This is a useless exchange because you obviously have not put enough thought into the SMOT experiment. It is not as straightforward as you apparently perceive it.

[hartiberlin]

Hi Merv, welcome to the forum ! Great to have you here and discuss your motor. Your motor seems to me really to be like an inverted SMOT, as your rotor are the magnets and thecoil core is the ball. It gives the "ball" a kick via shortening the coil, so it can leave the "track" with more speed. This principle could also be applied to the SMOT, if one would apply a good timed shorted coil there at the end of the track and use a magnet instead of iron as the roller device...but lets concentrate now to discuss over here the Merv motor please..

[smarthousesys]

Just to chuck something in to the pot  - think steel or iron wire for the twisted pair not copper