SMOT! - (previously about the OC MPMM)

[Low-Q]

@modervador,

To cut out the wordiness:

1. The energy Mb lost along B-C appears out of thin air. Thereââ,¬â,,¢s no source supplying that energy.

2. Therefore, Ea(final) > Ea(initial) contains energies coming out of no source. This is a violation of CoE.

If CoE were not violated Ea(final) = Ea(initial), as shown.

You already understand this although youââ,¬â,,¢re playing as if you donââ,¬â,,¢t. Now youââ,¬â,,¢ve heard it again and are fully prepared to open a thread in the Steorn forum and explain to the curious fellows there where your mistake was and why youââ,¬â,,¢re convinced now that SMOT violates CoE.

It's preferable not to clutter further this thread with seeming misunderstanding and do what's honorable to do right away--explain to some people in the Steorn forum what your confusion was and how you now clearly understand that SMOT violates CoE.

It's late, so maybe I have missed a few explanations here:

1. I can agree that the source of energy appears to come out from nothing, but I'm still not comfortable with the claim. As Mc is stronger than Mb, just means that the ball is forced in that direction. Even if it is upwards, the energy provided to the ball is the same as the relationship between the mass and magnetic attraction.

Now:

What about Kc? Kc is a sum of kinetic energy between the ball and the magnets inner poles, Kc_Mbetween, and the kinetic energy between the ball and point A, Kc_G, where M_between is the magnetic force between the ball and the magnets inner poles, and G is the gravitional force on the ball. As the ball is able to escape from C means that Kc_G is greater than Kc_Mbetween. That means there is a kinetic energy between the ball and the magnets inner poles at point C, and a kinetic gravitional energy between the ball and point A.

When the ball starts to escape from C towards A, the ball will still have the kinetic energy Kc_Mbetween a small distance untill the point where the ball is in perfect balance between attraction from the magnets inner poles and outer poles, where Kc_Mbetween = Kc_Moutside = Kc₀ = 0, where Kc_Moutside is the kinetic energy between the ball and the magnets outer poles. What left at this point is the kinetic energy between the ball and point A, Kc_G.
Further, beyond the point Kc₀, Kc_Moutside will influence the ball all the way down to A, so the energy the ball gains from B to C, which appeard to come from nothing, is then lost when the ball reach point A.

Maybe @modevador have something to say about this as well (?).

2. Therfor, Ea(final) < Ea(initial) contains no applied energies from thin air, plus other losses as heat. CoE is obeyed.

Good night, it's 12:30AM

[tinu]

@all,

Find bellow a short description of SMOT, its behavior and some interpretation based on classical physics. Comments are welcome.
(Please take it slowly if not familiar with concepts. I?ll try to answer to specific questions and/or critical comments, in the limits of available time.)

http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/energy.htm
?According to the law of conservation of energy, the total energy of a system remains constant, though energy may transform into another form.?

The total energy in SMOT is:
Eb=mgh1+Mb; (Kb=0)
Ec=mgh1+mgh2+Kc; (Mc=0 by convention)
Eb=Ec

Total energy in C is transformed into magnetic potential and kinetic energy in A.
Ea=Ma+Ka
Ea=Eb=Ec

where:
Ma, Mb, Mc: magnetic potential of the system in A,B,C;
Ka, Kb, Kc: kinetic energy in A, B, C
h1: vertical distance between B and A
h2: vertical distance between C and B
Ea, Eb, Ec: total energy of the system in A, B, C
m: mass of the ball
g: gravitational acceleration.

In the absence of friction, ball in SMOT will continually loop, assuming that an appropriate mechanical track (i.e. a tube) is provided. In this idealized looping, total energy remains constant, transformed from magnetic potential into gravitational potential into kinetic energy according to Ea=Eb=Ec, which is equivalent to Ma+Ka=mgh1+Mb=mgh1+mgh2+Kc.

Because no practical SMOT can be ideal, some energy is lost in any case. However, the particular setup of SMOT forces the ball to stop in A, meaning that the ball dissipates all of its kinetic energy in A as heat, sound etc.  (This is not an engineering problem but the choice of the experimenter who decided to terminate the track as the ball to come to a full stop in A.) Thus, Ka is taken out of SMOT at every cycle and it has to be replenished in order for the next cycle to be able to take place. This replenish of energy is done by the experimenter?s hand, as follows:
From the above equation (Ma+Ka=mgh1+Mb) it can easily be seen that Ka=mgh1+Mb-Ma. But Ein=mhg1+Mb-Ma (computed by subtracting the potential energy of A from B) and is also equal with Ka, having the same algebraic equation.

http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/potentialenergy.htm
?Potential energy, or stored energy, is the ability of a system to do work due to its position or internal structure. For example, gravitational potential energy is a stored energy determined by an object's position in a gravitational field while elastic potential energy is the energy stored in a spring.?

One can not take the ball as an isolated object and make deductions. The system of ball-magnets (i.e. the whole SMOT in its entireness) has to be considered at all times, because of continuous manifesting magnetic (and gravitational) interaction between the sub-components. In an ideal looped SMOT, notice that the movement of the ball is non-uniform and it may be considered highly counter-intuitive: the ball accelerates from B to C (apparently uphill) and then decelerates when passing C toward A (apparently downhill) then decelerates again from A to B (this is the only one which seems intuitive, as the ball decelerates uphill). However, at a closer inspection it is seen that the ball merely transforms its energy from one form into another.
It can be thus seen that the ball is not and can not be considered in isolation. If one does, it will reach false conclusions. For instance, one possible mistake is considering that ball in C has a gravitational potential energy equal to (mgh1+mgh2). This is not correct: the system ball-Earth has a gravitational potential energy equal to (mgh1+mgh2), not the ball itself.  One may say this is a mere un-important semantic detail. Not so! That?s because the ball is not free in respect to Earth but it is constrained by another potential field: the magnetic one (i.e. the ball is ?connected? with the magnets in SMOT). Therefore, it can be seen that although gravitational potential exist, the total potential field (sum of gravitational and magnetic) is the one governing the movement. In this respect, one can not expect that the ball in C will gravitationally free fall; the ball will never leave C if it doesn?t have enough kinetic energy (Kc) to overcome the powerful magnetic attraction.

After such long preparative, one of the main issues can be addressed: it looks puzzling at a first glance that the ball in C has both gravitational potential energy and quite a large kinetic energy. 
Well, does it?! Let us dissect it.

The ball in C has exactly the same total energy as in B:
Ec=mgh1+mgh2+Kc
Eb=mgh1+Mb
The movement from B to C is not much different as when placing a magnet above a ball on a table and observing the ball is vertically lifted to the magnet. It can be seen that Eb=Ec means further that Mb=mgh2+Kc, which physically means that magnetic potential Mb is transformed into gravitational potential and kinetic energy. Exactly the same process as in simple magnet-lifting-ball experiment: the ball is obviously lifted (magnetic potential is transformed into gravitational potential energy) and it is accelerated (it gains kinetic energy and quite a lot of it, depending on the ?strength of the magnets?; the final ?klunch? sometimes violent sound is nothing else but Kc being transformed into sound and heat.). In SMOT, however, the difference is that Kc is not being lost and this needs to be immediately discussed.
For that, first let?s assume that you have conducted the magnet-lifting-ball experiment and you ended with the ball stuck to the magnet. Obviously, some energy needs to be provided in order to remove the ball. How much energy? Physics, (but also common logic) because of time-reversal-symmetry-equation reasons, says the ball needs exactly Kc joules for reversing the process. Now, after supplying that energy needed to reverse the process, one has a falling ball having initially quite a large kinetic energy: Kc. Let?s us remind that the ball is falling in gravitational field. Does it accelerate, as intuition might say it would, further increasing its kinetic energy in addition to the Kc already provided?! Nope. In fact, the ball will decelerate and it will very gently land on the same initial departing point on the table. This may sound un-realistic but the whole difficulty would be purely practical, namely in providing the ball with exactly Kc energy, not more and not less. Isn?t it interesting that with a simple magnet, the ball accelerates upward and decelerates downward? Where does its initial (kinetic-Kc and potential-mgh energy) go? Does it vanish? No. It goes back into the magnetic potential that lifted the ball in the first place.

Coming back to Eb and Ec, following the above it is easily to understand that:
1. Kc is needed for the ball being able of getting out of SMOT; this energy can not be removed or the ball would become stuck in SMOT, thus not in agreement with SMOT experiment (no cyclical operation possible anymore; a slightly different discussion would then be needed but not much different from the current one);
2. Although gravitational potential and kinetic energy are both highest in C, there is no contradiction in both of these energies being later transformed back into magnetic potential (Ma).
3. It has been repeatedly stated that Ec>Ein, where Ein=input energy. (This issue was also previously discussed but hereby addressed again mainly for completeness). First: SMOT will require no input energy if an appropriate looping track is provided (see the top), thus Ein =0. But obviously Ec>0 (Kc can be strictly positive and so are h1 and h2). It results that Ec>Ein=0 in ideal case.
Second: because in the analyzed experiment Ka is ?extracted? out of the system (i.e. the ball is forced to stop in A) but Etotal=Eb=Ec=Ea=Ma+Ka, where also Ma>0 according to the assumed convention, it can be seen that always Ec>Ein, both in ideal (Ein=0) and non-ideal (Ein>0) case. 
Indeed, Ec>Ein and I am not aware of anyone challenging the truth of this fact. But it does have a very illuminating explanation: Ec is total energy and Ein=Eout, thus, by rewriting the inequality we have Eout<Etotal. This is quite a startling state of facts, because it not only supports CoE but it actually shows that SMOT is literarily one of the worst devices conceived: one can not get out the energy he consumes in the first place (when constructing SMOT and its magnetic fields)!
(I will not further comment on Eout<Etotal because I know the rationale above and the length of this post might be well beyond what?s customary here and furthermore a discussion on possible Eout=Etotal seems even lengthier although possibly exciting nonetheless. So be remain the simple Eout<Etotal and its mathematical proof and physical interpretation for now.)


Analog SMOT-like experiment that can help grasping the above:
On a horizontal plane, a magnet is placed and secured. A ball is launched from a convenient distance and at a suitable angle toward the magnet, as to close by and not remained magnetically trapped. (The trajectory of the ball will be curved due to attraction but this is of no relevance here).

Marking with B (not A, for reasons of analogy with SMOT) the launching point and with C the point of minimal distance between the ball and the magnet and having
Kb: initial kinetic energy of the ball;
Kc: kinetic energy in C;
Mb: magnetic potential in B;
Mc: magnetic potential to the closest point the ball approaches the magnet,

Kb+Mb=Kc+Mc (conservation of energy, where Kb+Mb=Eb and Kc+Mc=Ec).

Because C is being closer to the magnet than B we have Mb>Mc.
Thus, it results that Kc>Kb.

Interpretation: the ball accelerates, having its greatest kinetic energy in C. In fact, Kb may be arbitrarily small (the ball is placed freely in B, without kinetic energy; Kb=0) and it will suddenly accelerate toward C. However, this acceleration is done at the expense of magnetic field. (It is not free energy). Moreover, kinetic energy in C can not be extracted from the system without perturbing it (i.e. the ball becoming magnetically stuck in C).


Final thoughts: All discussion is somewhat pointless, because CoE can not be proved within a theory that is based on CoE. CoE can not be disproved either this way. For either one or another, a new theory would be needed, supported by or conceived upon experimental results. Otherwise, all arguments are futile since actual equations implicitly and/or explicitly assume CoE (for instance in Ein=mgh1+Mb-Ma, the assumption of conservative property for both gravitational and magnetic field is included and so is CoE validity. Same is true for all equations posted.) But the possible use of above discussion on SMOT is mainly educational and/or recreational.

Cheers,
Tinu

P.S. I propose to contain the discussion on SMOT into this thread, not only for easy reference in the future but also to avoid contaminating the whole forum.

[Koen1]

Nice analysis Tinu!

[tinu]

Nice analysis Tinu!

Thank you!

[Omnibus]

@tinu,

You shouldn't thank @Koen1 for praising your analysis because he should have told you just the opposite--your analysis is incorrect. The whole text is a bunch of crap at the basis of which lies your premise that total energy of the system is (mgh1 + Mb), let alone that Eb = Ec. Even @modervador doesn't allow himself to utter such stupid things, not recognizing that mgh1 is energy external to the system (input into the system) and that Ec = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) which isn't at all Mb. You're embarrassingly stupid and uneducated and instead of hiding somewhere and silently following the discussion in the hope to learn something you impudently annoy and insult the intelligence of any thinking person in this forum. What nerve.