Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[tinu]

...
Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE.
...

I?m sorry to interfere. I?m also a trained person but the above is not clear.
The sign for Mb in ?(+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+])? should be negative imho. But the discussion may go forever because the problem is not well defined, not to mention it is discontinuously and scarcely presented in various small posts. For instance, the reference point for gravitational potential energy is clearly assumed (as per elementary physics) but what is the reference point for magnetic potential? A, B, C or infinite? I couldn?t find it stated?

Considering the above as well as the overall non-constructive/futile discussions above the subject, may I respectfully suggest Omnibus to write a small but clear&comprehensive article about CoE violation in SMOT and post it somewhere so anyone can read it and refer to it?

Many thanks,
Tinu

[Omnibus]

...
Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE.
...

I?m sorry to interfere. I?m also a trained person but the above is not clear.
The sign for Mb in ?(+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+])? should be negative imho. But the discussion may go forever because the problem is not well defined, not to mention it is discontinuously and scarcely presented in various small posts. For instance, the reference point for gravitational potential energy is clearly assumed (as per elementary physics) but what is the reference point for magnetic potential? A, B, C or infinite? I couldn?t find it stated?

Considering the above as well as the overall non-constructive/futile discussions above the subject, may I respectfully suggest Omnibus to write a small but clear&comprehensive article about CoE violation in SMOT and post it somewhere so anyone can read it and refer to it?

Many thanks,
Tinu

Not so. All signs and reference points are correct and the problem is well defined. Think before posting.

[tinu]

...
Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE.
...

I?m sorry to interfere. I?m also a trained person but the above is not clear.
The sign for Mb in ?(+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+])? should be negative imho. But the discussion may go forever because the problem is not well defined, not to mention it is discontinuously and scarcely presented in various small posts. For instance, the reference point for gravitational potential energy is clearly assumed (as per elementary physics) but what is the reference point for magnetic potential? A, B, C or infinite? I couldn?t find it stated?

Considering the above as well as the overall non-constructive/futile discussions above the subject, may I respectfully suggest Omnibus to write a small but clear&comprehensive article about CoE violation in SMOT and post it somewhere so anyone can read it and refer to it?

Many thanks,
Tinu

Not so. All signs and reference points are correct and the problem is well defined. Think before posting.

How the problem is well defined?

Signs in potential energy are a matter of convention. Then you make other assumptions which may or may not be true. In fact, I?ll show below that they are not true.

For instance, considering that DEp negative means the system does work, you a priory imply that Ma>Mb. But it is also clear that Mb>Mc, otherwise the ball wouldn?t move up on the ramp, as seen in the movie. So Ma>Mb>Mc.  Here is already something else not well defined. That?s because A-B-C defines a closed loop and there is always on that very loop a point C? so defined as Ma+Mb+Mc?=0. But C? and C are two different points. Let me be very clear: Ma+Mb+Mc is not zero. C is not the point of minimum magnetic potential energy. C? is. C is just a local minimum and it doesn?t mean much. The true minimum magnetic potential energy is probably somewhere below the ramp.

Then, moving further, how it comes that the ball is in equilibrium in A?
Well, if h of A is taken 0, the equilibrium requires that Ma < Mb +mgh1, otherwise the ball would fly from A to B. Take lim(h1)->0 and you'll have that Ma<=Mb, which is in contradiction with the first assumption that Ma>Mb. Shortly, to cut the crap, here is your mistake, dear Omnibus. You strongly believe that just because the ball is ferromagnetic and just because there is a magnet in B, the ball should be attracted and when you lift it you have to spend less than mgh1. Wrong. The configuration of the magnetic field is such a way that the ball is much strongly attracted to another point that B. In conclusion, you lift the ball from A to B and you spend more than mgh1, not less.

I hope you agree that I do think from time to time. I don?t have any problem with your demonstration other that it is incomplete so far (and wrong in the end) and I?ll let it be your way, if this is your wish instead of consuming 30mins for compiling one simple page.
By your way I mean that SMOT violates CoE but no one agrees except you. And the great physical demo requires input energy. Of course, one can always pretend it?s a matter of engineering.

Sorry for cluttering the thread. 

Tinu

[Omnibus]

...
Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE.
...

I?m sorry to interfere. I?m also a trained person but the above is not clear.
The sign for Mb in ?(+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+])? should be negative imho. But the discussion may go forever because the problem is not well defined, not to mention it is discontinuously and scarcely presented in various small posts. For instance, the reference point for gravitational potential energy is clearly assumed (as per elementary physics) but what is the reference point for magnetic potential? A, B, C or infinite? I couldn?t find it stated?

Considering the above as well as the overall non-constructive/futile discussions above the subject, may I respectfully suggest Omnibus to write a small but clear&comprehensive article about CoE violation in SMOT and post it somewhere so anyone can read it and refer to it?

Many thanks,
Tinu

Not so. All signs and reference points are correct and the problem is well defined. Think before posting.

How the problem is well defined?

Signs in potential energy are a matter of convention. Then you make other assumptions which may or may not be true. In fact, I?ll show below that they are not true.

For instance, considering that DEp negative means the system does work, you a priory imply that Ma>Mb. But it is also clear that Mb>Mc, otherwise the ball wouldn?t move up on the ramp, as seen in the movie. So Ma>Mb>Mc.  Here is already something else not well defined. That?s because A-B-C defines a closed loop and there is always on that very loop a point C? so defined as Ma+Mb+Mc?=0. But C? and C are two different points. Let me be very clear: Ma+Mb+Mc is not zero. C is not the point of minimum magnetic potential energy. C? is. C is just a local minimum and it doesn?t mean much. The true minimum magnetic potential energy is probably somewhere below the ramp.

Then, moving further, how it comes that the ball is in equilibrium in A?
Well, if h of A is taken 0, the equilibrium requires that Ma < Mb +mgh1, otherwise the ball would fly from A to B. Take lim(h1)->0 and you'll have that Ma<=Mb, which is in contradiction with the first assumption that Ma>Mb. Shortly, to cut the crap, here is your mistake, dear Omnibus. You strongly believe that just because the ball is ferromagnetic and just because there is a magnet in B, the ball should be attracted and when you lift it you have to spend less than mgh1. Wrong. The configuration of the magnetic field is such a way that the ball is much strongly attracted to another point that B. In conclusion, you lift the ball from A to B and you spend more than mgh1, not less.

I hope you agree that I do think from time to time. I don?t have any problem with your demonstration other that it is incomplete so far (and wrong in the end) and I?ll let it be your way, if this is your wish instead of consuming 30mins for compiling one simple page.
By your way I mean that SMOT violates CoE but no one agrees except you. And the great physical demo requires input energy. Of course, one can always pretend it?s a matter of engineering.

Sorry for cluttering the thread. 

Tinu

Like I said, think before posting and don't waste my and other participants' time with things you haven't understood well.

[tinu]

@ Omnibus:

To help answer Shrugged Atlas's question, would this be a fair description for where the exta energy in the SMOT goes?  As I see it...if you have a steel ball at x height and the SMOT makes it rise to X+whatever, then the potential energy of the ball has been raised and it is stored in the ball.  In other words, a one pound weight 1 foot off the ground has more potential energy than a one pound ball 6" off the ground.  Correct?  I think this is where the SMOT shows OU.

I don't really know so I am just putting this out there.  The fact that the engineering problem has not been solved, as Shrugged says, to close the loop does not preclude the extra potential energy imparted to the sphere by the SMOT in my mind.

Bill

That's correct.

That?s wrong.
See above posts.