DEBATE THREAD

[Omnibus]

Still the fact that he did the calculations is interesting.

This is in reference to Naudin's "output measurements" of SMOT. The differences he saw are attributable to the friction losses of a ball falling into a tube from a rolling start vs. starting from dead standstill.

This is another nonsense from @modervador. Since he is trying to involve himself in discussing Naudin's experiment he should know better that both the reference experiment and the experiment with SMOT are carried out from "dead standstill", as he puts it. The difference he mentions is non existent. Therefore, here is another example of deliberate attempt to mislead the already mostly confused readership of this thread.

Please let the man speak freely!
I am interested in reading his posts but a lot less in reading yours. This may change if you could refrain from making so many elementary mistakes. Here the point is clear and I?ll restate it for your easy understanding: yes, both experiments are carried out from dead standstill but in one the ball enters the tube rolling and in the other experiment it enters not-rolling. As you should know, the drag coefficients are very different for the two cases.
Admitting your mistake and apologizing for it and also for your insults would be just appropriate but I don?t put many hopes in seeing such conduct from your side. At least refrain for the future.

Thanks,
Tinu

Aha, you want to shut me up and prevent me from stating what the truth is so that @modervador could continue spewing his dishonest rantings which he has stated more than once. You gotta be kidding me.

[PolyMatrix]

Insults are pointless. They only work if the other person cares about what you think of them. The truth is though that you can't make someone think what you want them to think. So what that person thinks of you is their problem not yours. You can't change your past. You can only learn from your history and try learning and thinking for yourself in the future. So if you accept that you exist and that one day you will die, for the time being we might as well just play these games of life and ignore insults as they are not going to change anything.

[DA]

I just thought I'd check in to this thread, since I see that my opinions have been cited. I've been working on another post to the other SMOT thread, but here's a quick paraphrase.

Omnibus and I do agree that Ea(final) > Ea(initial), and that (mgh1+mgh2+Kc) > Ein as well as (mgh1+mgh2+Kc) > Ea(initial). This is all a result of the total energy of the ball at point B being the sum of initial and imparted energies, transformed through potential and kinetic energies from B through C to A. Because of the "transformation" part of CoE which isn't violated in SMOT, the total energy at point B, Eb is equal to Ec, the total energy at C. Thus we have

Etotal = Ea(initial) + Ein = Eb = Ec = Ea(final)
Etotal = Ma + (mgh1+Mb-Ma) = mgh1 + Mb = mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc = Ma + Ka

Note that I have consistently defined Ea(final) as the total energy of the ball at the end of its run when returned to point A, but BEFORE it loses any of its kinetic energy. I now define a new variable, Ea(ultimate) = Ea(final) minus its kinetic energy, i.e. measured AFTER the ball has encountered the "bumper" at point A and its kinetic energy is used or lost as heat and/or sound. Thus it can be shown that when the ball is once again at rest,

Ea(ultimate) = Ea(final) - Ka = (Ma + Ka) - Ka = Ma = Ea(initial)

Hi Modervator,

You have improved the initial Omnibus proof.  Well done.  You used both = and > which is much clearer.  As a suggestion, for a proof to be valid the quantities must be well defined, to see you strictly define what Ea(final) and Ea(ultimate) really mean helps the proof immensely, so both can be used in equations during the proof.  You seem to have the best grasp of both the proper notation and the SMOT.

To help other people discuss the proof, write out the entire proof in standard notation;
----------------------------
1 State theory
2Define terms
3Then starting with a statement of the initial conditions,
4 follow logically through the steps, with each step already proved.
5 only one thought per line, as in all well written proofs.
6 And end with the result.
---------------------------------------

It is important to make only ONE change per line of the proof, even when obvious.  When this is done well, someone trying to understand the proof can point to just one step, and say something like, "I don't see how you get from 2 to 3?"  and everyone knows what he means.

I haven't seen a proof of SMOT done properly yet, but I haven't read all the posts.  I have asked where a valid proof is located, but have not found any acceptable.  Yet I have not given up.  This thread is the most promising hope I have of finding a real proof that SMOT can gain energy.  There are a lot of good people thinking about it, and using this thread to communicate and share knowledge. 

I do think a gain in energy is possible.

I would like to see a well written proof.

One line at at time.

Who want's to start? 

-----------------------------------------------
Proof that SMOT can gain energy

Define Ea(initial)
Define ...
Define ...

If
Ea(initial) = Ea(initial)

Then

and so on

Do it right.  I will try to help.  It has been done this way for centuries, and the reason it is done this way, is because it works!  The formal proof system helps humans to work together, as a team, to solve a problem.  Together, we can do anything.  Everyone is worthwhile.

DA

[PolyMatrix]

@DA

Thanks that last post should be a sticky.

[Omnibus]

@DA,

I appreciate that but all these terms have been well defined throughout thousands of post we have exchanged in the course of time. All these integrals Ma and Mb have been written and discussed extensively. All other quantities too. Unfortunately, this isn't a peer-reviewed archival medium of the type some of us are used to. This is a new medium to exchange ideas, characterized by its brevity and patchy nature and one has to have followed the whole trend of discussion throughout the months and years. That's too bad but that's how it is.

Now, this problem has been settled long ago, SMOT has already been definitively proven to violate CoE. @modervador knows this very well but he takes advantage of the periodic resurfacing of the debate to try to sway it in the direction he originally intended (helped by the confusion of many a "debater") but was proven wrong. This is nothing else but his ego trip.