Has anyone tried this?

[Omnibus]

@xpenzif,

Undoing can be accomplished by properly superimposing another conservative field such as the gravitational filed leading to producing more energy out than in. This is how SMOT violates the principle of conservation of energy.

[xpenzif]

@omnibus
I have a question. Which point is lower?
A: the starting position where the ball/object is placed.
B: the position where the ball comes to rest after dropping off of the peak of the ramp.

[Omnibus]

@xpenzif,

Answering these questions will not help you to understand why SMOT violates the principle of conservation of energy.

If that?s what you need to understand (and that?s what?s really important) observe http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif whereby, obviously, the gravitational potential energy spent is mgh1 while the gravitational potential energy lost is mg(h1 + h2), that is, greater than the gravitational potential energy spent when the loop is closed, which is a clear violation of the principle of conservation of energy. All this in a closed A-B-C-A loop in the magnetic field which means that no magnetic potential energy has been spent or lost when the loop is closed.

So far SMOT, constructed so that two conservative fields are properly superimposed, is the easiest reproducible way to demonstrate violation of energy conservation beyond doubt.

[xpenzif]

Can't see the image but I looked at a couple others.

The object has more gravitational potential energy at the peak of the ramp than what it started with, but the only reason the work generated by the magnets isn't being undone is because the starting point needs to be higher than the resting point- If point C were as high as point A then the work would have to be undone because it would be too close to the magnets.


Just an idea, I could place a piece of metal on the floor and wave a magnet over it and have the metal "jump" and cling on to the magnet I am holding. Now the metal has more gravitational potential energy than it had on the floor. Free gravitational potential energy. I will only get to do it once, but I guess thats the same problem with smot.

[lwh]

"Suppose two magnets are held together in opposition(like north pole on north pole).
Is the force with which the two magnets push apart equal, or less than the force it took to actually put them in this position of opposition?"

I'd say less.

"The same can be asked about attraction: Is the energy that can be generated from two magnets attracting each other equal, or less than the energy it will take to pull them back apart?"

I'd say less.

This is why I don't believe any mechanical design or process will work. 

When magnets are attracted to each other, a greater or equal force is required to separate them.  And when magnets are repulsing each other, a greater or equal force is required to join them. 

The best you can get is a force applied once which balances the magnets and allows them move freely in relation to each other, but with an overall greater degree of inertia.  The analogy I think of is like a huge stone disk that is balanced so it can spin freely and will do so for longer than a lighter object similarly spun.  I hope that makes sense.

So if I believe this, why would I bother with the magnetic toroid?  Because I wasn't sure if it was a mechanical magnetic set up or powered by some other means.  Which is to say, "These spiral designs can be elusive."

Also, what I believe to be true and what I wish to be true are sometimes different things, but I'm free to act on both (and neither).

Les.