SMOT TEST- can someone do this?

[nwman]

Here's an idea! How about someone make the same test as in the videos but with a foot of ramp before the smot. Would this stop this debate?

Tim

[g4macdad]

Vidar,

Even though there can be a place near the entrance where the ball may feel a repulsion, the magnetic potential energy at that point and all points nearby is still less than it is far away.  There is nowhere you can place the ball where it will be ejected from the magnet's field, and no cheating to be had by placing the ball in the SMOT entrance vs. placing it without magnets.

The best you could hope to do is come out even, by placing the ball exactly at the null in the field where it feels no force.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

@Mr. Entropy,

This is arguable and not entirely necessary.
If there is an area where the magnetic field is essentially null (and there is such an area in SMOT), then the magnetic potential of that point is the same as for an infinite distance. (Magnetic field energy density is zero). That particular point is B by a very good approximation (not exactly, because the ball would remain in unstable equilibrium in that point but B is very, very close to it, as close as the hand can place the ball). So, B is the point of highest magnetic potential energy, although it seems hard to accept at a first glance. That?s why Mb>>Ma.

This is the main reason why conventional thinking about SMOT is not appropriate and why omnibus is obviously wrong.

Please comment.
Respectfully,
Tinu

This logic is ridiculous. Stop insisting that Omnibus is "obviously" wrong. If you want to prove his theory wrong, then do it! Stop patronizing the rest of us, and saying you are right without adequate proof. I don't think it would take a lot of effort to challenge what Omnibus is saying, but if you are unwilling to go through with it, please be quite.

[Low-Q]

Vidar,

Even though there can be a place near the entrance where the ball may feel a repulsion, the magnetic potential energy at that point and all points nearby is still less than it is far away.  There is nowhere you can place the ball where it will be ejected from the magnet's field, and no cheating to be had by placing the ball in the SMOT entrance vs. placing it without magnets.

The best you could hope to do is come out even, by placing the ball exactly at the null in the field where it feels no force.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

@Mr. Entropy,

This is arguable and not entirely necessary.
If there is an area where the magnetic field is essentially null (and there is such an area in SMOT), then the magnetic potential of that point is the same as for an infinite distance. (Magnetic field energy density is zero). That particular point is B by a very good approximation (not exactly, because the ball would remain in unstable equilibrium in that point but B is very, very close to it, as close as the hand can place the ball). So, B is the point of highest magnetic potential energy, although it seems hard to accept at a first glance. That?s why Mb>>Ma.

This is the main reason why conventional thinking about SMOT is not appropriate and why omnibus is obviously wrong.

Please comment.
Respectfully,
Tinu

This logic is ridiculous. Stop insisting that Omnibus is "obviously" wrong. If you want to prove his theory wrong, then do it! Stop patronizing the rest of us, and saying you are right without adequate proof. I don't think it would take a lot of effort to challenge what Omnibus is saying, but if you are unwilling to go through with it, please be quite.

Those prooves are easy accessible, and has ben presented several times - which he again are convinced are wrong. The thing is that someone does not give up on his SMOT, no matter what. Probably because he is pretty genuine in his conviction about it.

Vidar

[Mr.Entropy]

@Mr.Entropy,

How come? There are direct measurements which prove I'm right. h1 can be measured directly, h2 can be measured directly, m can be measured directly. Think before posting.

How much energy is dumped into the ceramic dish at the end?  A lot means OU, a little means not.  There is no measurement.  What you say is spent there is just you talking.  And since your ridiculous analysis infers a CoE violation from mathematical laws that are known to forbid it, you are obviously in error.  Maybe you should learn the basics of vector calculus before you start going on about what happens in a linear superposition of conservative fields.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

[Mr.Entropy]

This logic is ridiculous. Stop insisting that Omnibus is "obviously" wrong. If you want to prove his theory wrong, then do it! Stop patronizing the rest of us, and saying you are right without adequate proof. I don't think it would take a lot of effort to challenge what Omnibus is saying, but if you are unwilling to go through with it, please be quite.

Describe something that you would accept as "proof", and I'll oblige if possible.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy