DEBATE THREAD

[modervador]

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.

[tinu]

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.

Excellent point, as usual!
But also the ?choice? of the ball to free fall out of SMOT from its entrance instead of going up the ramp as it usually does is telling me that ?input measurements? involves a systematic methodological error caused by the ball positioning, error that at least has to be estimated and only then neglected if proved totally negligible. Disagree?

Anyway, at loses of 34% I wonder why no one told it?s not advisable to use glue inside the tube.

Respectfully,
Tinu

[Omnibus]

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)

No, this is misleading. I already explained that many, many times. For instance here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3949.msg73823.html#msg73823

It is imperative to understand that CoE requires nothing else to be compared but the energy imparted to the ball and the energy that is spontaneously transformed into other energies when the ball returns at its initial position. Any other comparison of energies is due only to confusion or to dishonestly mislead those who are already confused to begin with, as is the case with @modervador's "argument".

I'll repeat for the umptieth time that the obvious discrepancy between the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) imparted to the ball to remove it from its initial position and the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) which the ball has available to be spontaneously transformed in other energies when it returns at the initial position is the sole viable criterion proving violation of CoE.

@modervador knows this very well, however, his dishonesty doesn't allow him to admit explicitly that my argument is correct and that SMOT violates CoE. Thus, he finagles and desperately writes texts wrapped in gobbledygook just to appear that he has to say something hoping that it will pass before the mostly confused public in these forums. That's a shame. 

[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.

[tinu]

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