SMOT! - (previously about the OC MPMM)

[Omnibus]

@Low-Q,

Not so. Read what I told you carefully, try to understand it and then post.

[Omnibus]

@All,


I feel this needs to be said. The importance of the analysis I?m emphasizing so much cannot be overestimated by any standard. Only a brief look at the various forums where this is discussed immediately shows what wall of resistance is arising from all segments trying to push the idea by any means available that this absolutely cannot be overunity. Facts are slapping them in the face but they?ll say literally anything to avoid even the faintest idea that this might be overunity, that CoE can be violated. The behavior of the constructor of the device @alsetalonkin is especially curious. The self-appointed skeptic (not very versed in the subtleties of science, as I have found out before in discussions with him) now provides a most convincing evidence and yet in the same breath insists that with 99.999% certainty it will turn out to be an artifact since CoE cannot be violated. Yes, but we now know categorically, due to the analysis carried out long before the experiment in question, that CoE can be violated and such machines are possible. Therefore, he cannot escape along that route. The only thing he can now say is that he has faked the video. Yes, but he isn?t saying that. He insists the video is genuine. He even promised to show next week an even longer video of better quality. What now remains is what we saw in the video to find independent verification and we?re on the way. Good luck to all in this exciting exploration.

[Low-Q]

@Low-Q,

Not so. Read what I told you carefully, try to understand it and then post.

Hi there.

The ball at point B is running towards point C - not only to the right, but also upwards a bit. Right?

Point B has less magnetic field consentrated around the ball than point C, hence this movement towards point C. Right?

The kinetic energy in the ball at point B is less than point C in respect to point A, as point C is higher than point B. Right?

Then we can imagine that the ball will move towards point C, and the acceleration of the ball makes it flip over the edge at point C. Right?

The greater kinetic energy at point C will provide more time for the ball to accelerate towards point A than it will do from point B. Right?

Imagine a track that guides the ball back to point B. Right?

So far, so good.


To the real world:

The magnetic field in point C is so great that it will force the ball to move upwards from point B to point C.

The same magnetic force will act on the ball when it flips over the edge at point C to fall downwards to point A. In fact the ball will almost stall directly beyond point C as point C has the greatest flux.

But the ball have enough speed to flip over, bearly, and going for a fall towards point A.

Point C is still acting on the ball in the fall. This will slow down the acceleration and also reduce the kinetic energy of the ball to less than the desired energy.

As the ball is moving along the track back to point B, the flux in point B will attract the ball. But as the magnetic flux in point B is less than point C, so the gain of kinetic energy adds up to zero.

Losses:
Then you have drag in the ball caused by Eddy-currents as the ball moves from pont B to point C. So the speed of the ball right before point C is less than the desired one. The same Eddy-current slows down the ball when it is going back from point C to point B via point A.

The friction of the ball generates heat and sound as the ball rolls, which is loss of energy.

These two main losses will force the ball to stop a certain distance before it reach point B.

So it will not be possible to close the loop and believe it violates CoE.


Pleas feel free to explain the picture more precisely. So we all understand how it was supposed to work.

Br.

Vidar

[Omnibus]

Low-Q,

This analysis is incorrect.

[Low-Q]

Low-Q,

This analysis is incorrect.

So far you have explained to me that |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| is different from |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mc))| . If not, you should try to explain your drawing again, but please be more specific Use PM, so we don't mess up this thread more than we've already have done.

EDIT: The ball are lifted to point B, then it continues to point C, then it drops back to point A, where C to A is greater energy than A to B? I GOT IT!!

Still this is not violating CeO. Because the greater attraction in point C will slow down the balls drop from C to A so the total energy stored in the drop between C and A will be the same as dropping it from B to A.

Vidar