DEBATE THREAD

[Omnibus]

Perhaps, I have to say something more on this topic to aid the honest seekers of the truth to understand better why SMOT violates CoE. Here it goes:

The main problem in the analysis shown here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMOT is the implication that there must be a  working self-sustaining device to prove violation of CoE. This is a misleading statement by someone at odds with what science requirements are to claim violation of CoE.

This implication carries on further in the text explaining why this device isn?t violating CoE:

?The device does not gather "free energy" as is sometimes advertised. It does convert potential energy in the form of the steel ball's distance from the magnetic source to kinetic energy as it rolls towards it - just as is done by any object when it falls. Similar conversions of energy from potential to kinetic and back take place in the swinging of a pendulum, but the representation is created by the perceived increase in gravitational potential energy as the ball rolls up the ramp. The eye is not attuned to see the decrease in magnetic potential energy as it moves towards the magnet. Any device constructed to extract the energy from the system will not work forever just as no pendulum will oscillate forever as dissipative forces (such as friction) will eventually damp the motion. Thus, in this conception, the device is not a perpetual motion machine since it will eventually stop, and there is no "overunity" efficiency achieved.?

This is a blatantly incorrect analysis because the analogy that is applied therein with a pendulum is inapplicable in SMOT. The source of energy which the pendulum returns when swayed away from its initial state is known. The pendulum returns (loses spontaneously) that energy in its entirety when returning to the initial position. Not so in SMOT. In SMOT the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) which the ball returns spontaneously (the energy that is spontaneously transformed into other energies) when the ball returns at its initial position is greater than the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted to the ball.

It should be very heavily underlined that exactly this discrepancy between input and lost energy which science considers as criterion for the violation of CoE. Nothing else. No self-sustaining devices, pro practical application of the energies etc. Just the comparison of the quantities of the imparted and lost energy is what matters when one is to decide whether or not CoE is violated.

So, now, again, here?s that argument in short:

The experiment (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847) proving violation of CoE is presented schematically here: http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif (if the link doesn?t open hit Reload). Denote the mass of ball by m, the gravitational constant by g, the magnetic potential energy at points A and B respectively by Ma and Mb, the heights to raise the ball from point A to B and from B to C respectively h1 and h2, kinetic (and other) energy by Kc.

If CoE is to be obeyed then only the amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) of the entire amount (mgh1 + Mb) at B will transform into other energies upon the return of the ball from B to A. Amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) is the amount of energy imparted to the ball.

In SMOT, however, the entire amount of energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) the ball has at point C which is greater than the amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) imparted to the ball is transformed into other energies upon the return of the ball at A. This is in clear violation of CoE.

I?ve been posting the above argument over and over again and so far only @modervador understood it. Unfortunately he?s dishonest and because of that is unwilling to admit explicitly that I'm right in my claim that SMOT violates CoE. He would say literally anything, with a typical polite arrogance, to avoid honestly admitting that my analysis conclusively proves that SMOT violates CoE. He will have to live with his conscience.

[Omnibus]

Here is wickpedia's view against the idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMOT

Wikipedia's "Analysis of operation" sounds like the works of a crackpot trying to use words like "kinetic" and "energy" to sound scientific. It is nowhere near an "analysis", more of a one line "It's impossible" argument.

Very well said.

[PolyMatrix]

Perhaps a Physicist can tell me why the turning moment of the North and South Poles is not equal.

Experiment:
Take two rod-magnets and let the attracting poles connect. The join becomes the centre of a circle.
Part the two magnets and find the angle at which the magnet is no longer able to return to its North South connection.
Now do the same for the other ends of the magnet.

For the magnets I used I found that the turning moment was a little over 120 degrees for all directions. This is true for both ends of a magnet. So is would seem there is an overlapping turning moment.

What is the correct way of interpreting this observation?

[supersam]

@omnibus,

i friend, am not your enemy.  you have plenty of those without my input.  the only suggestion i can make to you is why not use some real numbers in your proofs, so that they do not look like just a bunch of variables?  because without real numbers that is exactly what they are.  they are are all variables.  except of course for one, which has been proven mathematcially to equal 2!

lol
sam

[supersam]

@omnibus,

what if you dropped your, SMOT, ball at just the right time to strike the pendulum of MILKOVIKS, dual occilating pendulum? would the outcome be a perpetual energy generator,if some of the energy from milkovic's machine,can be, feed back to your smot?