Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[Omnibus]

@shruggedatlas,

This is wrong. Read my analysis carefully and try to understand it.

[shruggedatlas]

@shruggedatlas,

This is wrong. Read my analysis carefully and try to understand it.

I did read it carefully, and I do not see anywhere where you account for greater pull at C than at B.  Anything you can do to clear this up would be appreciated.

[Omnibus]

@shruggedatlas,

This is wrong. Read my analysis carefully and try to understand it.

I did read it carefully, and I do not see anywhere where you account for greater pull at C than at B.  Anything you can do to clear this up would be appreciated.

This is accounted for in the analysis. Read it again carefully and try to understand it. I can only explain it as I've done many times already but I cannot understand it for you.

[shruggedatlas]

@shruggedatlas,

This is wrong. Read my analysis carefully and try to understand it.

I did read it carefully, and I do not see anywhere where you account for greater pull at C than at B.  Anything you can do to clear this up would be appreciated.

This is accounted for in the analysis. Read it again carefully and try to understand it. I can only explain it as I've done many times already but I cannot understand it for you.

I have read it.  Many times.  Your position is that at point A, where the ball starts and stops, the magnetic potential is the same, so it is not a factor (you conclude that the net change in magnetic energy along A-B-C-A is zero).  Then, because the researcher only uses energy -mgh1 and the returned energy is (+mgh1 +mgh2) plus also the kinetic gained along B to C, then there is an excess of energy +mgh2 plus the kinetic.  That is all you write.  If there is more, please correct me.  I have reviewed this and I understand what you are getting at.

I challenge the underlying assumption that the net change in magnetic energy is zero.  The potential magnetic energy at A is not at its peak but is in fact zero, because the magnet is too far away to have any pull at that point, so it is dishonest to conclude from this that the net change in magnetic energy throughout the entire process is zero.  Simply put, when the researcher lifts the ball closer to the magnet and actually imparts magnetic potential, there is where you should begin to take into account magnetic forces.  And you continue to take them into account until the ball leaves the pull of the magnet, somewhere below point C.  Your equation fails to do this, but instead relies on the misplaced belief that magnetic forces are a wash.

The end result is that the ball returns to point A with less kinetic energy than what it would take to place the ball at B.  It seems it costs more energy to get the ball away from point C and to point A than what the researcher expended to get the ball to from point A to point B, even with the magnet helping to pull at point B.  Result: no excess energy.  Why?  Because the magnetic pull of the SMOT ramp has taken what it has given.  (The only reason the ball even returns to point A is because gravity is so much stronger than the magnetic pull at C.)

So please do not blame the losses on heat until you have an equation that accounts accurately for all the forces in play.

[Omnibus]

@shruggedatlas,

You have gaps in understanding basic Physics and therefore, what you're saying is incorrect. Please consult first some standard Physics textbook before coming here to discuss this matter. It's a waste of time to continue when you're so confused about the fundamentals.