DEBATE THREAD

[Omnibus]

Interestingly I found someone else has been thinking along similar lines to Omnibus here
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm

That experiment is flawed by conception.
It does not measure SMOT efficiency because it fails to measure input energy. Drop from the input is not input energy; think about it.

Cheers,
Tinu

Nonsense.

[tinu]

Interestingly I found someone else has been thinking along similar lines to Omnibus here
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm

That experiment is flawed by conception.
It does not measure SMOT efficiency because it fails to measure input energy. Drop from the input is not input energy; think about it.

Cheers,
Tinu

Nonsense.

BS

[DA]

Interestingly I found someone else has been thinking along similar lines to Omnibus here
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm

Just for the record, I have never claimed that a SMOT will or won't work.  I merely said that in my opinion the "proof" of Omnibus is invalid.  Perhaps there is, or will be, a valid proof someday.  If the Omnibus proof is valid, he should have no problem in compiling a long list of people who agree that it is valid, or at least a few.  This could happen.

Actually, I found the quoted link a bit interesting.  This person actually DID measure the energy gain of his SMOT, and obtained 0.424 mJ of energy gain. (whether or not it is correct I cannot tell).  He even shows a video of the measurement method.  After a few tries I got the video to work, and it "apparantly" shows the ball going farther with the SMOT than when just dropped from the exact same height without the SMOT.

What is more interesting is he claims to have constructed a circular SMOT, and was able to observe the ball rolling around the circle for 5 minutes, http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot3pl.htm
However, he does state that he starts the ball from the top of a ramp, not the bottom.  On this same page he mentions selling SMOT 2 and SMOT 3 KITS, but this was 1997 and I haven't found any more reference to this.  Perhaps he quit selling kits.

Also on that page he has an unusual ramp design which uses only one magnet. 

While the last entry I could find dated was 1997, the site notes the last update was in 2005.


On another note, while I do not accept the Omnibus proof, I have noticed several people asking for discreet numbers instead of variables to make the proof valid.  I cannot agree with this, because there are many valid proofs that contain only variables.  Variables are numbers too, and fixed numbers are not necessary for a proof to be valid.

What I do object to, very much, is people using insults.  Things like "you are stupid" should have no place here.   While Omnibus seems to be the most prolific in spouting insults, he is not the only one.  Insults do not help discussions, and hinder the expression of ideas and possible progress.  Just because YOU THINK someone's idea is not workable, is no reason to call them "stupid" or any other derogatory term.  Just say that YOU THINK they are incorrect or that you do not understand, that is sufficient.

Even if someone is not what you consider intelligent, they can still have a brilliant idea.  Omnibus MAY be correct in that a SMOT can violate COE.  The number of people that agree or disagree has no effect, just as in the past most people agreed that man could not fly.  Many have correctly stated that it is their OPINION that it won't work, they are correct because they said it was their OPINION.

DA

[PolyMatrix]

@DA

A little later he is 'selling' version 3 but embarasingly the kits never arived.

Still the fact that he did the calculations is interesting.

Edit. Still can't find an agreed method of calculating the work done by a magnet.

[modervador]

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)