This thread used to be all about the OC MPMM. It has now been completely derailed. Enter at your own risk.
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=59687
I don't believe this will work, but then, what do I really know?
Bill
It may work with 3 or more rotors, but this is basically the perendev setup with a twist. Good luck...I wish you the best, but I don't trust sims.
Jason
There wasn't much interest when I first started this thread, but there wasn't much to show either. Just a few graphics. Now someone has taken serious interest in the idea and is actually building something. Maybe you'd like to take another look.
The concept: http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=59687
The construction: http://freeenergytrackers.ning.com/photo/photo/listForContributor?screenName=3pgkrtdln76us
Did the device work?
4Tesla
If you take the time to follow the links, look at the graphics and photos, and read some of the text, you'll see that it's still in the early stages of construction. A lot more work needs to be done.
Just posting here in case one of the more gifted builders here wants to try building something like this. The more, the merrier.
Looks like a magnetic "gearbox", with the rotating magnets and larger wheel acting as cogwheels...
And like a cogwheel version, it doesn't look like any more energy (rotation) can be delivered to the larger wheel that was not put in by the smaller ones...
In this case we have magnetostatic friction where the cogwheels have mechanical friction...
What makes you think it could be OU so that it can power itself despite friction and resistance?
One of the reasons I posted here was because I know there are some people here skilled in the simulation arts. I would dearly love to see a detailed sim of this thing in action. It might help to determine feasibility. In the meantime, trial-and-error validation continues ...
Excuse me, are you saying you have not actually done any simulations? Not even extensive mental simulations?
So you just had an idea, and you think instead of doing some simulations and calculations to see if it might indeed work,
spending lots of time and money on building something of which you have no clue if it will work is the best way to go?
Well of curse if you have the time and the money to waste then by all means do so...
But the design seems quite straightforward to me, and I don't see it working at over unity... Now that's only the mental simulation
and related quick mathematical sim of course, but in general I have found that my mental sims tend to turn out very close if not identical to computer simulations of the magnetic fields...
Hey, but if you get it to work, please do post! :)
Koen1,
I HAVE done "mental" simulations. I have also performed some trivial experiments with magnets to convince myself the idea is not completely without merit. So far, I have not seen anything to indicate the idea is unworkable.
Unfortunately, I do not have access to any software capable of simulating the mechanism shown or the knowledge how to use it properly. I also lack the equipment to build something of this nature and I'm not willing to contract with a local machine shop unless I have some reason to believe it might possibly work.
Your response indicates to me that you have done less investigation on this technology than I have. I'm looking for additional evidence, not opinions.
And please don't quote some mathematical formulas to me. If we listened to the math, there would be no need for a site like this, and no hope whatsoever for any overunity devices. The math should reflect reality, not the other way around.
Quote from: rotorhead on December 17, 2007, 02:29:14 PM
I HAVE done "mental" simulations. I have also performed some trivial experiments with magnets to convince myself the idea is not completely without merit. So far, I have not seen anything to indicate the idea is unworkable.
Okay, okay, but if you have done extensive mental simulations based on up to date knowledge and understanding of electromagnetic theory, and those have convinced you, then why not just build it? Unless you're actually not convinced, but you're only hoping that it may work... ;)
QuoteUnfortunately, I do not have access to any software capable of simulating the mechanism shown or the knowledge how to use it properly. I also lack the equipment to build something of this nature and I'm not willing to contract with a local machine shop unless I have some reason to believe it might possibly work.
Didn't you just say you have not seen anything that indicates it will not work? Is that not the same as having no reason to believe it might not work?
Seems to me like youre saying "I believe it may work. But I am not prepared to place an order at a machine shop, because I have no reason to believe it may work."
And that sounds like a form of contradiction to me...
QuoteYour response indicates to me that you have done less investigation on this technology than I have.
Now that's funny because your own contradictory comments indicate to me that you have yourself done a lot less investigation on pm devices in general including this "technology" than I have. :)
QuoteI'm looking for additional evidence, not opinions.
If there were evidence of such a setup working, then it would have been built, patented, and probably marketed or at least revealed long ago. After all, this is a very simple setup. There would and should be tons of evidence...
More interestingly, what makes you think that it would rotate using less energy than you put in?
I can see how it may rotate, but I fail to see where the energy gain would be...
Seems to me the Takahashi motor still has a better chance...
QuoteAnd please don't quote some mathematical formulas to me. If we listened to the math, there would be no need for a site like this, and no hope whatsoever for any overunity devices. The math should reflect reality, not the other way around.
Don't see why I'd quote maths... Mathematical proof is very nice if one is trying to build a firm wall of evidence, and can be very usefull during certain stages of OU device design, but maths is not everything... I prefer logical reasoning and mental simulation. If that checks out, maths might be nice to further substantiate the proofs. At this point in development I would decide whether to go for computer simulation, or go for construction.
Keep in mind that computer simulations also have their limitations. Many magnetics sims only simulate the magnetostatic fields, and of course all are based on the theory of magnetics to a degree. Most sims can simulate the behaviour of magnets and mag.fields according to the Maxwellian formulae, on a macro scale. Quantum effects related to magnetism, like spin effects etc, are not included in most sims. Similar to the fact that electrodynamics sims most often only model Maxwellian macro events well, but don't do so well for quantumelectrodynamics at all.
So what I'm basically saying is that the simulations you are looking for are all directly based on the mathematics you seem to be somewhat wary of.
Sims are very much mathematical constructs. Real physical magnets are not.
Point I am trying to make: if you don't want mathematical proof, but empirical evidence, then you don't really want the sim, you want the prototype.
Might just turn out that the prototype works where the sim does not. ;)
Quote from: Koen1 on December 17, 2007, 03:05:58 PM
Quote from: rotorhead on December 17, 2007, 02:29:14 PM
I HAVE done "mental" simulations. I have also performed some trivial experiments with magnets to convince myself the idea is not completely without merit. So far, I have not seen anything to indicate the idea is unworkable.
Okay, okay, but if you have done extensive mental simulations based on up to date knowledge and understanding of electromagnetic theory, and those have convinced you, then why not just build it? Unless you're actually not convinced, but you're only hoping that it may work... ;)
I didn't say I was convinced it would work. I said I was convinced the idea has merit. It appears to be a new approach that I haven't seen anywhere else. It uses both magnetic attraction and repulsion simultaneously to provide rotational forces.
QuoteQuoteUnfortunately, I do not have access to any software capable of simulating the mechanism shown or the knowledge how to use it properly. I also lack the equipment to build something of this nature and I'm not willing to contract with a local machine shop unless I have some reason to believe it might possibly work.
Didn't you just say you have not seen anything that indicates it will not work? Is that not the same as having no reason to believe it might not work?
Seems to me like youre saying "I believe it may work. But I am not prepared to place an order at a machine shop, because I have no reason to believe it may work."
And that sounds like a form of contradiction to me...
You are correct. I don't currently have enough faith in the idea to go down to the machine shop and invest a significant amount to have the thing designed and built. I'm bringing it up here in hopes someone can show me some additional evidence one way or the other.
QuoteQuoteYour response indicates to me that you have done less investigation on this technology than I have.
Now that's funny because your own contradictory comments indicate to me that you have yourself done a lot less investigation on pm devices in general including this "technology" than I have. :)
You may very well have done more investigation on pm devices than I have. But you haven't offered me any evidence why this type of system won't work. Show me something. I have set up some magnets, they do rotate on their own as claimed, if rotation is stopped in the correct orientation the combined forces of attraction and repulsion are applied in the direction of rotation. Is there enough force to keep things rotating? I don't know.
But it looks more promising to me than the Torbay Motor ever did. Definitely better than the Lego Motor or the screws on PVC thing a while ago.
QuoteQuoteI'm looking for additional evidence, not opinions.
If there were evidence of such a setup working, then it would have been built, patented, and probably marketed or at least revealed long ago. After all, this is a very simple setup. There would and should be tons of evidence...
More interestingly, what makes you think that it would rotate using less energy than you put in?
I can see how it may rotate, but I fail to see where the energy gain would be...
Seems to me the Takahashi motor still has a better chance...
Maybe. But most motors I am aware of use only attraction or repulsion, or alternate them, not both simultaneously like this one.
QuoteQuoteAnd please don't quote some mathematical formulas to me. If we listened to the math, there would be no need for a site like this, and no hope whatsoever for any overunity devices. The math should reflect reality, not the other way around.
Don't see why I'd quote maths... Mathematical proof is very nice if one is trying to build a firm wall of evidence, and can be very usefull during certain stages of OU device design, but maths is not everything... I prefer logical reasoning and mental simulation. If that checks out, maths might be nice to further substantiate the proofs. At this point in development I would decide whether to go for computer simulation, or go for construction.
Keep in mind that computer simulations also have their limitations. Many magnetics sims only simulate the magnetostatic fields, and of course all are based on the theory of magnetics to a degree. Most sims can simulate the behaviour of magnets and mag.fields according to the Maxwellian formulae, on a macro scale. Quantum effects related to magnetism, like spin effects etc, are not included in most sims. Similar to the fact that electrodynamics sims most often only model Maxwellian macro events well, but don't do so well for quantumelectrodynamics at all.
So what I'm basically saying is that the simulations you are looking for are all directly based on the mathematics you seem to be somewhat wary of.
Sims are very much mathematical constructs. Real physical magnets are not.
Point I am trying to make: if you don't want mathematical proof, but empirical evidence, then you don't really want the sim, you want the prototype.
Might just turn out that the prototype works where the sim does not. ;)
It's possible a simulation might help me see something I hadn't considered previously. I'd be interested in some of the force calculations anyway, to see if they add up.
Hey, it looked like a new and different approach. I just thought I'd see if anyone else was interested.
rotorhead:
Is it possible for you to show me the gif-files in this thread? I cannot find it in your link. A few pictures, but not the animations.
EDIT: It might be easier to understand how the motor are suppose to work, and easier to show why it will/will not work.
br.
Vidar
Quote from: rotorhead on December 19, 2007, 01:35:37 AM
I didn't say I was convinced it would work. I said I was convinced the idea has merit. It appears to be a new approach that I haven't seen anywhere else. It uses both magnetic attraction and repulsion simultaneously to provide rotational forces.
Oh I'm sorry for busting your balls before, I misunderstood. I thought you were convinced it had to work, didn't realise you're only pondering the possible merits of cooperative attraction- and repulsion-effects in pm motors. :) Apologies.
QuoteBut it looks more promising to me than the Torbay Motor ever did. Definitely better than the Lego Motor or the screws on PVC thing a while ago.
:D You're right there.
QuoteMaybe. But most motors I am aware of use only attraction or repulsion, or alternate them, not both simultaneously like this one.
Indeed. Although I have also heard a few 'inventors' claim that using only the principle of attraction somehow gives more output than using rejection in pm motors...
On the other hand, if that were really the case, we should have several attraction-based motors out there already, and I don't know of any attraction-based OU devices at present. ;)
I'm not entirely sure why using attraction and rejection simultaneously would produce different or stronger effects, but it may be worth experimenting with.
QuoteIt's possible a simulation might help me see something I hadn't considered previously. I'd be interested in some of the force calculations anyway, to see if they add up.
Makes sense. Unfortunately I can't help you with the sim software. I know FEMM and a few others, but I don't know any sim programs that can actually simulate the mechanics as well as the magnetics and then calculate overall forces. Sorry.
Quote from: Low-Q on December 19, 2007, 04:37:59 AM
rotorhead:
Is it possible for you to show me the gif-files in this thread? I cannot find it in your link. A few pictures, but not the animations.
EDIT: It might be easier to understand how the motor are suppose to work, and easier to show why it will/will not work.
br.
Vidar
http://www.imgbolt.com/files/view/100653/OC13-fast.gif
http://www.imgbolt.com/files/view/100653/OC13-slow.gif
http://www.imgbolt.com/files/view/100653/OC13-Frame1.gif
http://www.imgbolt.com/files/view/100653/OC13-RotatingMagnetDetail.GIF
http://imgbolt.com/files/100653/Exp1/StatorRotor.jpg
http://imgbolt.com/files/100653/Exp1/Pieces.jpg
http://imgbolt.com/files/100653/Exp1/RotatingMagnets.gif
http://imgbolt.com/files/100653/MagnetRelationships.gif
http://imgbolt.com/public/26428/WheelWithNotes.jpg
There were also some earlier animations.
http://imgbolt.com/public/26167/Orbo-fast.gif
http://imgbolt.com/public/26168/Orbo-slow.gif
That's all I can find at the moment.
thanks for the links. The case is:
It will not work, because:
Magnets wants to find its least stressful point, hence the rotation of the magnets when you slide them forward. In this case, the rotating magnets are slaves that obay the rule of magnetism due to the forward and backward motion done by external force by your hand. Thats why there is no sticky spots - at least very weak. When arranging the magnets as shown both stator and rotor magnets are slaves, so you have no sticky spots, and no accelerating forces to run the wheel.
Whithout sticky spots, there will never be forces to move a magnet. To use sticky spots correctly, the spot has to change polarity very sudden when the rotor magnet is at the closest point. That does not happen in your design. However, to do so, the stator magnet must mechanicly swap polarity very quickly, but to turn a magnet 180 degrees when another magnet is nearby requires energy - more energy than you build up during the rotor acceleration. The sticky spot will in other words prevent the stator magnet to swap polarity.
An electrical trigged swap is the only solution, but will never be the key to over unity.
Br.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on December 19, 2007, 12:44:05 PM
thanks for the links. The case is:
It will not work, because:
Magnets wants to find its least stressful point, hence the rotation of the magnets when you slide them forward. In this case, the rotating magnets are slaves that obay the rule of magnetism due to the forward and backward motion done by external force by your hand. Thats why there is no sticky spots - at least very weak. When arranging the magnets as shown both stator and rotor magnets are slaves, so you have no sticky spots, and no accelerating forces to run the wheel.
What you seem to be describing is the condition where the rotating stator magnets are free to rotate. If you actually read further, you will see that stops are used to prevent the magnets from rotating naturally. This, of course, introduces sticky spots, but it also allows the magnets to be locked into an orientation which provides greater forces to spin the rotor. Instead of using attraction or repulsion to move the rotor, both are used simultaneously, one stator magnet pushing and the next one pulling.
QuoteWhithout sticky spots, there will never be forces to move a magnet. To use sticky spots correctly, the spot has to change polarity very sudden when the rotor magnet is at the closest point. That does not happen in your design. However, to do so, the stator magnet must mechanicly swap polarity very quickly, but to turn a magnet 180 degrees when another magnet is nearby requires energy - more energy than you build up during the rotor acceleration. The sticky spot will in other words prevent the stator magnet to swap polarity.
How fast the magnets change their relationship in this design depends on how fast the rotor is spinning. In the prototype under construction, 1/2" magnets are used. The magnets go from strong attraction to strong repulsion in 1/2". If the rotor is spinning fast, this will happen very quickly. There is also mention of a spring mechanism which should reduce the effort required to overcome the sticky spot.
QuoteAn electrical trigged swap is the only solution, but will never be the key to over unity.
Br.
Vidar
An electrical solution is what we have been doing for well over a century. It's called an electric motor, and nobody so far has successfully demonstrated one that can produce more power than it consumes. This OC motor concept has not yet been proved or disproved. I personally think there are some interesting points that should be more thoroughly investigated.
You may be satisfied that it won't work, I'm not. I want to see some empirical evidence.
I understand your point. Nevertheless, magnets ALLWAYS want to find a point where forces and counterforces are equal. You have plenty of these points in your design. So your motor will not run due to the nature of permanent magnetism. A permanent state does not contain energy. Hence you cannot extract energy from it.
You must turn magnetism in order to do work. To turn a magnet require exactly that much work.
That is the emperical evidence. Simple as that :)
Vidar
Low-Q is right. I've tried building all kinds of PMM designs and only to find my wallet getting smaller and smaller. I have more magnets than I have brains at this point. Any one want to buy some magnets. :)
Hey guys, I may have missed it in the thread somewhere, but first off this project is a collaboration between the designer known as overconfident and the builder alselatokin, neither one is claiming anything at this point, its an idea that overconfident had some time ago and he is keeping it open source, he does not claim it will work, he just hopes it does, it is one of the most honest collaborations I've seen to date.
I think Howard Johnson gave us a lot to work with when he created his magnetic gate...
Study this gate! Study it well....!
Regards,
~Dan
Hi,
There is no doubt this magnetic gate is working. However, it requires that the curved magnet is inside of a certain distance from the gate in order to pass it. The gate is nothing more than a magnet where the virtual and highest magnetic flux is outside the magnet itself. Viewed at a very long distance, the magnetic lines in this gate is looking exactly the same as in a regular bar magnet.
What I say is that, if the curved magnet was further away from the gate it would be prevented to enter it. This fact is also present if you try to close the loop. Howard did never successfully closed the loop, and still to date it is impossible to do work with static forces.
Br.
Vidar
Howard Johnson definitely had some interesting ideas. Is anyone here in contact with him? It would be interesting to hear his take on the device this thread is about. So far I don't see any direct relationship between his motor and this one. But I could be wrong.
Some interesting new things happening over at http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=59687
I've been posting here for 3 months about this machine and nobody ever took the time to really look at it. Now, there's a video and everyone goes nuts.
I still haven't seen a decent simulation. The one over there isn't right (the person who made it admits that all the mechanical movements were done by hand, not computed).
The effect shown in the video isn't even what the inventor intended. The original concept has not actually been built. This is an early prototype and the effect was discovered by the engineer that built it.
But I may have seen enough to invest in a replication. I need to think about for a bit.
Correct. The engineer who built it (@alsetalonkin) should take the credit. And, by the way, it's only natural that only after a video one will pay attention. In science, especially in this area, ideas that a device may work don't matter one bit. These ideas, including that one have been around for centuries. The internet now is flooded with probable and bogus ideas. The one and only thing that really matters in such a case is actually building the device in flesh and blood and demonstrating that it really works. That's why those who have working devices but are secretive and dream of becoming rich are double losers. They will never become rich on this and credit won't go to them. One thing should be understood very well. Openness and free dissemination of knowledge are not only good for society but are also the most expensive commodities in science. Those that have something to show, if they are wise, must do the opposite of what the likes of Steorn are doing. They should run and grasp at every opportunity to have it replicated by independent parties. Also, one sure way of preserving one's interests (priority) is to have it published in a peer-reviewed journal. The more prestigious, the better. With all the necessary details to help independent researchers confirm its reality. That's the way to go.
@ Omnibus:
Well said. I could not agree more. Happy New Year to you.
Bill
Happy New Year to you, @pirate88179 and to everyone in the forum. You should've seen what fight broke out in the Steorn forum. It turns out that by @alsetalonkin's own admission he only published the video because I had pissed him off. Can you believe it. Had I not pissed him off we wouldn't have known about this. Then it's pretty easy to stimulate people to do good things. How more childish one can be? Also, someone else there claims that this is his idea and credit should go to him. @alsetalonkin only built it. These people are out of their minds. Have they no idea what matters in this case? Anyway. Good luck to you and may we have a working device replicated by many, many people this year.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LJCAuPoaluk (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LJCAuPoaluk)
Understand, these guys are not claiming anything at this point and it does slow down to a stop.
Go away @RunningBare. Your input isn't necessary. You have made no contributions to this field and your only role is to be a nuisance.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 05, 2008, 03:19:44 AM
Go away @RunningBare. Your input isn't necessary. You have made no contributions to this field and your only role is to be a nuisance.
"yawns"
As small as my contributions have been, at least they have been real and not some fantasy.
I'm supporting these guys all the way, they have done great collaboration together with REAL science.
If your truly serious in supporting these guys Omni, please stop your continued rhetoric and look at the REAL aspects of this.
It may slow and stop eventually, but the remarkable thing is that it accelerates first, at the very least I'm convinced they've discovered something new, OU or NOT.
You have no contributions. And you're not supporting these guys. You're a hypocrite. I have rarely seen anyone spew so much crap throughout all these years in a forum and have no shame.
Quote from: rotorhead on January 05, 2008, 12:50:33 AM
I've been posting here for 3 months about this machine and nobody ever took the time to really look at it. Now, there's a video and everyone goes nuts.
I looked at it. I thought it was pretty clever -- it took me longer than it should have to figure out that it doesn't work according to conventional physics. I'm not here to rain on people, so I just shut up about it.
Now Al has this video of something different -- not your original design but something related that was discovered in the process of trying to replicate your design. It also doesn't work according to conventional physics, and it won't work in any accurate simulation of conventional physics.
The experiment is the key, because it
does seem to work in real life. If that bears out, it means that you and Al have discovered some
new physics, and the possibility of that is a good reason to stand up and take notice... good enough that I've ordered magnets.
The video shows an obvious overunity event -- more energy comes out than Al put in. If it bears out, you and Al will be famous. Congrats!
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
@Mr. Entropy,
The question of priority was discussed extensively in the Steorn forum and I also told @overconfident (@rotorhead here), as you do, that in fact @alsetalonkin has done something different from @overconfident?s original design. Besides, as you seem also to agree, I told @overconfident that the priority goes to the person who first demonstrates a working motor in flesh and blood violating CoE. These ideas and the numerous variations thereof are known for a long time, for centuries, if you wish, and that?s not what will convince anybody. Only the experiment is what matters in this case. @overconfident saw this by himself?prior to the video no one was paying attention to his idea. I know @overconfident isn?t happy with this fact but that?s the way science functions.
There is one thing which, however, the likes of you should never forget and that is that the discovery that CoE can be violated and energy out of nothing can be produced has already been made experimentally and rigorously proven theoretucally prior to @alsetalonkin?s experiment. My analysis and rigorous proof that CoE can be violated has already been around in numerous posting and in various forums already for almost two years. And what is most interesting, the rigorous scientific proof I?ve put forth is not any ?new physics? as you expect but comes about from well-known equations of the classical physics and hitherto overlooked possibilities in classical physics for the discovered violation of the principle of conservation of energy (CoE). Never forget that.
Interesting video. I would however liked to see the machine from underneath as well, and not only from the upper side. So there is only 8 rotor magnets pointing its poles N-S, S-N etc. and three freely rotating stator magnets. The rotor is spinning clockwise, and the stator magnets are of course spinning counter clockwise when the rotor was turned clockwise. What is the purpose of accelerating the farmost magnet counter clockwise? Why did the two other stator magnets retain still after it was stopped during the operation? And why did the rotor accelerate when these two magnets was stopped? Less drag? What happens when the machine is kept vertical - will it then stop?
I'm sitting here as a big question mark ;D, and I'm for sure hoping that this machine has potential, and at the same time hoping that there isn't any spooky underneath the machine - something like wires and batteries....
br.
Vidar
@Low-Q,
The big question mark you have will be erased most convincingly when you do the experiment yourself. @Jdo300 was so kind to offer his help with drawing the diagrams (thanks a lot Jason), what magnets are to be purchased is mostly known. Go ahead and do it. Enough with this negativism. There's nothing suspicious underneath. Sorry to sound that sharp but I felt someone had to tell you this.
@Omnibus:
I'm just a sceptic person, and do credit myself for any possible reason why an "evidence" should be a fake one. Thats why all the questions. Sorry to sound like a negative person, but my intents isn't to kill any hope or entusiasm. However, you're right. I needed to be told what I'm been told. I'll try to improve my way of expressing myself on this forum. Really, I mean it :)
When that is said, I'll be waiting to see if a new video is coming up, showing all sides of the machine during the run, and showing tha running machine in different places in the room in one video shot.
Br.
Vidar
Quote from: Omnibus on January 05, 2008, 01:41:12 PM
I told @overconfident that the priority goes to the person who first demonstrates a working motor in flesh and blood violating CoE.
The development was pretty obviously a collaboration between OC and Al. It would be petty to bicker about which of them had "priority".
Quote
My analysis and rigorous proof that CoE can be violated has already [...]
Oh, lets not start that again.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
@Mr.Entropy,
I know you want that to go away somehow but be assured I will persist with it because I'm a scientist and I care very much about the truth. You have to swallow somehow that violation of CoE and production of energy out of nothing was discovered and rigorously proved before the experiment we're discussing. The experiment in question is, as I've always insisted regarding such experiments whose possibility I've always said I never doubted, just an engineering application of that discovery. It is a great engineering achievement but still not the one that has first conclusively demonstrated violation of CoE.
Hi everyone,
Glad to see so much enthusiasm!
For those who know what you are doing, best whishes and good luck, as usual.
For everyone else, read my lips as a bit of advice before ordering various parts: magnet motors do not work.
I?m not a skeptic. I know it for sure. ;)
So, this must be a fake. Easy to see how (thanks Vidar) but hard to tell why. Time will soon tell.
One more remark before moving on: this is not negativism. It is realism. Science demands all results are reproducible under the specified setup and experimental conditions, ?which are not given because there is nothing to put on paper as documentation, really. We live in times when theory precedes experiments by a long way. Although experiments of what-if are still conducted, they are much more advanced than swirling several magnets and claiming science?
Cheers,
Tinu
@tinu,
You're wrong. It has never been nor it will ever be that theory would precede experiment. Absolutely not. You're quite confused about that. As for reproducing this, you're right and this has been said already many, many times. That's why all these efforts. Reproducing and experiment such as this is as important as to carry it out in the first place. Also, your statement "magnet motors do not work" is preposterous in view of the firmly established fact that CoE can be violated and energy from nothing can be produced, let alone in the face of facts such as the latest @alsetalonkin experiment. Therefore, restrain somehow from uttering such unsubstantiated statements because they not only don't contribute anything to the discussion but just clutter it and make the substantial stuff sink into a swamp of nonsense.
Lets all be open minded, but let us all at the same time be careful with such statements like "violating CoE is possible to do". We all "know" it's not possible, so let's at forst look for other explanations to the motor discussed here than violating CoE. There is no proof anywhere whatsoever, that this machine is a genuine self sustaining rotating device, but there is also no known proof that this machine isn't a genuine self sustaining rotating device. if it is, we need an answer to why it keeps running - regardless of if it runs by external energy or not. We must be open minded in both posibilities.
br.
Vidar
@Low-Q,
On the contrary, we already know for sure that CoE can be violated. This has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt through a rigorous scientific analysis of a reproducible experiment. This has to sink in somehow and we should never again read unsubstantiated statements that "We all "know" it's not possible."
As for the machine in question, independent verification is still pending, indeed. However, eve if for some strange reason this particular machine turns out not to be a self-sustaining one, there should be no question that a self-sustaining machine can exist and will be constructed one day. Construction of such a machine is just an engineering problem and has nothing to do with provein whether or not CoE can be violated which has already been proven, as I said, positively.
Quote from: tinu on January 05, 2008, 04:37:31 PM
Hi everyone,
Glad to see so much enthusiasm!
For those who know what you are doing, best whishes and good luck, as usual.
For everyone else, read my lips as a bit of advice before ordering various parts: magnet motors do not work.
I?m not a skeptic. I know it for sure. ;)So, this must be a fake. Easy to see how (thanks Vidar) but hard to tell why. Time will soon tell.
One more remark before moving on: this is not negativism. It is realism. Science demands all results are reproducible under the specified setup and experimental conditions, ?which are not given because there is nothing to put on paper as documentation, really. We live in times when theory precedes experiments by a long way. Although experiments of what-if are still conducted, they are much more advanced than swirling several magnets and claiming science?
Cheers,
Tinu
(giggles and snickers) ;)
Quote from: Omnibus on January 05, 2008, 06:29:27 PM
@Low-Q,
On the contrary, we already know for sure that CoE can be violated. This has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt through a rigorous scientific analysis of a reproducible experiment. This has to sink in somehow and we should never again read unsubstantiated statements that "We all "know" it's not possible."
As for the machine in question, independent verification is still pending, indeed. However, eve if for some strange reason this particular machine turns out not to be a self-sustaining one, there should be no question that a self-sustaining machine can exist and will be constructed one day. Construction of such a machine is just an engineering problem and has nothing to do with provein whether or not CoE can be violated which has already been proven, as I said, positively.
An apple is allways falling down to the ground if you drop it - we all "knows" that. Even if that has happen in every attempts since forever, you will then tell me that there is no question about that this apple would evidently fall upwards one day? I can only see that violating CoE is exactly as much possible to happen as the apple will fall upwards one day. OK, let's not "fight" about who is believing right or wrong, or who knows best. Just let us see if time will reveal the only truth about this machine. I'm patient, and will wait and see what happens next - befor I buy more magnets...
Br.
Vidar
@Low-Q,
While for the example with the apple, residing in one conservative field, CoE holds without a doubt, when there is a favorable superposition of two conservative fields so that they can assist each other CoE can be violated and energy can be produced out of nothing.
This is the case with the device shown schematically here: http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif
Thus, as seen in the above link, when an amount of energy |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| is necessary to be imparted to the ball to raise it from A to the apex B then obviously the ball should lose exactly the same amount of energy |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| if it is to return from B to A. CoE is obeyed. However, if the same amount |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| of energy is imparted to the ball and the ball doesn't settle with B as an apex but, as experiment shows, instead reaches another apex C then, obviously, when the ball returns back at A the ball loses amount of energy different from the amount |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| imparted to it. This is in clear violation of CoE.
Having already the above argument available (which you should study carefully to understand it well) from now on you should never post unsubstantiated statements claiming that CoE can never be violated.
so this is it ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIvZJ9xGutI
Quote from: bobinaccounting on January 05, 2008, 08:46:43 PM
so this is it ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIvZJ9xGutI
Yes, thats the one
Oh and omnibus thanks for screwing up a perfectly good thread on the steorn forum.
The LaFonte Group is building at this time three OC motors to be tested at three different locations. If it proves sucessful, we will video the test on a glass top table and we are also building the rotor out of clear plastic. If the motor continues to run, we will set up a web cam so it can be viewed by any one at any time. Mark is fabricating at this time and has magnets being sent two day delivery.
Will post test results.
Thanks,
Butch LaFonte
Quote from: Omnibus on January 05, 2008, 08:20:41 PM
@Low-Q,
While for the example with the apple, residing in one conservative field, CoE holds without a doubt, when there is a favorable superposition of two conservative fields so that they can assist each other CoE can be violated and energy can be produced out of nothing.
This is the case with the device shown schematically here: http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif
Thus, as seen in the above link, when an amount of energy |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| is necessary to be imparted to the ball to raise it from A to the apex B then obviously the ball should lose exactly the same amount of energy |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| if it is to return from B to A. CoE is obeyed. However, if the same amount |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| of energy is imparted to the ball and the ball doesn't settle with B as an apex but, as experiment shows, instead reaches another apex C then, obviously, when the ball returns back at A the ball loses amount of energy different from the amount |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| imparted to it. This is in clear violation of CoE.
Having already the above argument available (which you should study carefully to understand it well) from now on you should never post unsubstantiated statements claiming that CoE can never be violated.
You forget that the magnetic field in point C, which is the strongest field, is breaking down the balls natural acceleration of 9.81m/s
2 in the first few centimeters of the "free" fall towards point A. Hence CoE is still obeyed. So maybe you should be more careful when pointing fingers towards others. Those who does, allways gets several pointing fingers back ;)
Vidar
@Low-Q,
Not so. Read what I told you carefully, try to understand it and then post.
@All,
I feel this needs to be said. The importance of the analysis I?m emphasizing so much cannot be overestimated by any standard. Only a brief look at the various forums where this is discussed immediately shows what wall of resistance is arising from all segments trying to push the idea by any means available that this absolutely cannot be overunity. Facts are slapping them in the face but they?ll say literally anything to avoid even the faintest idea that this might be overunity, that CoE can be violated. The behavior of the constructor of the device @alsetalonkin is especially curious. The self-appointed skeptic (not very versed in the subtleties of science, as I have found out before in discussions with him) now provides a most convincing evidence and yet in the same breath insists that with 99.999% certainty it will turn out to be an artifact since CoE cannot be violated. Yes, but we now know categorically, due to the analysis carried out long before the experiment in question, that CoE can be violated and such machines are possible. Therefore, he cannot escape along that route. The only thing he can now say is that he has faked the video. Yes, but he isn?t saying that. He insists the video is genuine. He even promised to show next week an even longer video of better quality. What now remains is what we saw in the video to find independent verification and we?re on the way. Good luck to all in this exciting exploration.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 06, 2008, 09:18:53 AM
@Low-Q,
Not so. Read what I told you carefully, try to understand it and then post.
Hi there.
The ball at point B is running towards point C - not only to the right, but also upwards a bit. Right?
Point B has less magnetic field consentrated around the ball than point C, hence this movement towards point C. Right?
The kinetic energy in the ball at point B is less than point C in respect to point A, as point C is higher than point B. Right?
Then we can imagine that the ball will move towards point C, and the acceleration of the ball makes it flip over the edge at point C. Right?
The greater kinetic energy at point C will provide more time for the ball to accelerate towards point A than it will do from point B. Right?
Imagine a track that guides the ball back to point B. Right?
So far, so good.
To the real world:
The magnetic field in point C is so great that it will force the ball to move upwards from point B to point C.
The same magnetic force will act on the ball when it flips over the edge at point C to fall downwards to point A. In fact the ball will almost stall directly beyond point C as point C has the greatest flux.
But the ball have enough speed to flip over, bearly, and going for a fall towards point A.
Point C is still acting on the ball in the fall. This will slow down the acceleration and also reduce the kinetic energy of the ball to less than the desired energy.
As the ball is moving along the track back to point B, the flux in point B will attract the ball. But as the magnetic flux in point B is less than point C, so the gain of kinetic energy adds up to zero.
Losses:
Then you have drag in the ball caused by Eddy-currents as the ball moves from pont B to point C. So the speed of the ball right before point C is less than the desired one. The same Eddy-current slows down the ball when it is going back from point C to point B via point A.
The friction of the ball generates heat and sound as the ball rolls, which is loss of energy.
These two main losses will force the ball to stop a certain distance before it reach point B.
So it will not be possible to close the loop and believe it violates CoE.
Pleas feel free to explain the picture more precisely. So we all understand how it was supposed to work.
Br.
Vidar
Low-Q,
This analysis is incorrect.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 06, 2008, 12:44:13 PM
Low-Q,
This analysis is incorrect.
So far you have explained to me that |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| is different from |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mc))| . If not, you should try to explain your drawing again, but please be more specific :) Use PM, so we don't mess up this thread more than we've already have done.
EDIT: The ball are lifted to point B, then it continues to point C, then it drops back to point A, where C to A is greater energy than A to B? I GOT IT!!
Still this is not violating CeO. Because the greater attraction in point C will slow down the balls drop from C to A so the total energy stored in the drop between C and A will be the same as dropping it from B to A.
Vidar
Low-Q,
Think again. Will the energy loss of the ball along B-A be the same as the energy loss along C-A?
Quote from: Omnibus on January 06, 2008, 05:33:29 PM
Low-Q,
Think again. Will the energy loss of the ball along B-A be the same as the energy loss along C-A?
No. The energy loss from C to A via B is the same as the energy loss from C directly to A.
You use energy to lift the ball from level B to level C. This energy you must extract from the distance C to A in order to close the loop. Then the calculation ends up in zero.
Vidar
@Low-Q,
"The energy loss from C to A via B is the same as the energy loss from C directly to A."
Of course. Read, however, what I asked you.
Quote from: RunningBare on January 05, 2008, 09:02:02 PM
Oh and omnibus thanks for screwing up a perfectly good thread on the steorn forum.
Pity he didn't just stay there! His obsession with SMOT is as outstanding as Steorns failed live demo but not half as interesting!
To "mis"-quote him, "Facts are slapping "him" in the face but he?ll say literally anything to avoid even the faintest idea that this 'isn't overunity' ".
Quote from: Omnibus on January 07, 2008, 04:15:51 AM
@Low-Q,
"The energy loss from C to A via B is the same as the energy loss from C directly to A."
Of course. Read, however, what I asked you.
Of course C to A is greater than B to A. I agree, but where and how do you violate the CoE? Wasn't that your claim?
Vidar
@hoptoad,
Don't clutter the thread with nonsense.
Low-Q,
See again what my claim is now that you understand that:
"Of course C to A is greater than B to A."
Think about how much A to B (the energy imparted to the ball) is. Isn't it equal to B to A and not equal to C to A?.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 07, 2008, 05:08:33 AM
@hoptoad,
Don't clutter the thread with nonsense.
Practice what you preach!
Quote from: Omnibus on January 07, 2008, 05:14:15 AM
Low-Q,
See again what my claim is now that you understand that:
"Of course C to A is greater than B to A."
Think about how much A to B (the energy imparted to the ball) is. Isn't it equal to B to A and not equal to C to A?.
That's correct, but only
without the magnets. Point A is within a finite distance to the magnets. The magnetic force is therefor, in respect to A, greater than the magnetic force in point B. Therefor you can use the same energy to lift the ball from A to C as from A to B if the magnets is present. So you still havn't violated the CoE. In a closed loop, point A is virtually infinetly far away, thus point B and C will have virtually the same magnetic force as they in a closed loop is virtually the same point.
@All of you: We all have predilection for different things in life, and don't see the limits due to pure blindness. "Love makes blind", or what you say in english.
Br.
Vidar
@Low-Q,
Of course. Because with the magnets, as seen, CoE is violated. With the magnets A to B isn't equal to C to A, correct?
Quote from: Omnibus on January 07, 2008, 05:57:44 AM
@Low-Q,
Of course. Because with the magnets, as seen, CoE is violated. With the magnets A to B isn't equal to C to A, correct?
No. A to B equals A to C
with magnets - if not, the ball would never be able to move from B to C.
A to B is less than A to C
without magnets - but then there is no excess force to move the ball from level B to level C
B to C is the difference between AB and AC.
The problem is how to move the ball from B to C without magnets.
CoE is not violated in both ways - both with and witout magnets. Think again :D
Vidar
@Low-Q,
This is obviously incorrect.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 07, 2008, 12:55:46 PM
@Low-Q,
This is obviously incorrect.
Nope. It's as correct as possible. So far you have just stated that this device is violating CoE because C to A is different from B to A. And not taken one single moment to explain why. So please do it, if you have any idea how it works out at all.
I'm done for now, waiting for the OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine to prove its potential ;)
br.
Vidar
@Low-Q,
QuoteSo far you have just stated that this device is violating CoE because C to A is different from B to A. And not taken one single moment to explain why.
Why? Because B and C are not equipotential, as you insist they are in the presence of the magnet. Why not? Well, because the experiment shows that--if they were equipotential the ball wouldn't have moved from B to C.
Curiously, and that's the violation of CoE, when the ball is at B it prefers to lose energy in going towards C (in addition to the energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)| which it will lose anyway when it's back at A) rather than lose it (lose just the energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)|) by going back to A and obeying CoE.
And, by the way, learn some elementary physics. It isn't true that "The magnetic force is therefor, in respect to A, greater than the magnetic force in point B." It's just the opposite, the magnetic force at B is greater than at A.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 07, 2008, 02:48:20 PM
@Low-Q,
QuoteSo far you have just stated that this device is violating CoE because C to A is different from B to A. And not taken one single moment to explain why.
Why? Because B and C are not equipotential, as you insist they are in the presence of the magnet. Why not? Well, because the experiment shows that--if they were equipotential the ball wouldn't have moved from B to C.
Curiously, and that's the violation of CoE, when the ball is at B it prefers to lose energy in going towards C (in addition to the energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)| which it will lose anyway when it's back at A) rather than lose it (lose just the energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)|) by going back to A and obeying CoE.
And, by the way, learn some elementary physics. It isn't true that "The magnetic force is therefor, in respect to A, greater than the magnetic force in point B." It's just the opposite, the magnetic force at B is greater than at A.
Hi Omnibus. You never give up, do you. Maybe you should go back and re-read this page:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3871.150.html
I guess you didn't read my comments closely enough. You are not helping your cause.
@oak,
As I already said, the exchange on that topic is finished. Stay with the discussion at hand.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 07, 2008, 02:48:20 PM
@Low-Q,
QuoteSo far you have just stated that this device is violating CoE because C to A is different from B to A. And not taken one single moment to explain why.
Why? Because B and C are not equipotential, as you insist they are in the presence of the magnet. Why not? Well, because the experiment shows that--if they were equipotential the ball wouldn't have moved from B to C.
Curiously, and that's the violation of CoE, when the ball is at B it prefers to lose energy in going towards C (in addition to the energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)| which it will lose anyway when it's back at A) rather than lose it (lose just the energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)|) by going back to A and obeying CoE.
And, by the way, learn some elementary physics. It isn't true that "The magnetic force is therefor, in respect to A, greater than the magnetic force in point B." It's just the opposite, the magnetic force at B is greater than at A.
I?m very disappointed at your proof, Omnibus. It?s all flawed.
1. The ball simply FREE FALLS from B to C in the total potential field (gravitational and magnetic).It?s nothing more than that; nothing unusual neither spectacular.
2. When the ball moves from B to C, it is not that it ?loses energy in going towards C (in addition to the energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)| which it will lose anyway when it's back at A)? but it loses energy FROM |mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)|. Where did you get that ?in addition? nonsense?!
There are also several obvious mistakes as well as speculative but false statements in your last posts but I?m too tired to comment them now. It would be pointless, anyway.
Instead, my former proposal is still open. Write a complete paper about CoE violation in SMOT and we shall talk on it. Until then, your arguments are clearly inconsistent to me as to so many others around. Is it out there a single competent person backing up your views?
Cheers,
Tinu
@tinu,
The ball free falls from B to C. Correct. Who, however, supplied the energy to bring it at B from C in the first place?
In point 2 you incorrectly state that in going from B to C it loses energy from |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))|. The correct statement is, in going from B to C it loses energy from (mgh1 + Mb) which the ball has at B. Get it?
@Omnibus,
I?ve got it long time ago. But I do not agree with such a firm statement. The ball in B has mgh1+Mb or mgh1+Mb+C or simply mgh1+Mb-Ma, which is more natural. Potential energy is defined up to a constant (C) and you won?t get anywhere along this line.
So, in moving from B to C, the ball loses energy from the one you provide by placing it in B. ?It loses? is of course not very correct. The ball loses no energy in an ideal device (in the absence of friction, induction loses etc.). It simply seeks its lowest state of total potential energy, which in SMOT is a trade-off between gravitational (ramp angle) and magnetic. Both can be adjusted as the ball will stop or not in C.
In short:
- the user provides mgh1+Mb-Ma to place the ball in B.
- the statement I commented was yours, not mine.
- potential energy definition can not be a proof of CoE violation. mgh1+Mb is defined only up to a constant and in order for me (for any physicist, I?d say) to accept your proof, you have to rigorously prove that the work done by the ball is higher than the energy you put in, which is mgh1+Mb-Ma.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2008, 10:48:20 AM
@tinu,
The ball free falls from B to C. Correct. Who, however, supplied the energy to bring it at B from C in the first place?
In point 2 you incorrectly state that in going from B to C it loses energy from |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))|. The correct statement is, in going from B to C it loses energy from (mgh1 + Mb) which the ball has at B. Get it?
The worst thing about Omni?s ?SMOT = OU? argument is that it?s completely immaterial and unimportant. People will believe CoE can be broken when they actually see an operating self-powered device, and not before. The SMOT argument adds nothing; it just fills up threads with junk. Try to avoid arguing with him about whether he's correct or not.
@tinu,
This incorrect. At B the ball has energy exactly (mgh1 + Mb) and nothing of the sorts you claim. Also, in going from A to B the ball loses magnetic potential energy, therefore, I'm not imparting magnetic potential energy into it. therefore, again, who has supplied the magnetic potential energy Mb by bringing the ball from C to B which the ball loses in going (free falling, as you say) from B to C.
@oak,
If you don't have anything to contribute, as you obviously don't, restrain from posting.
To understand that CoE can be violated, as is already definitively proven already, is crucial in this area of research. See what's going on with the endeavor we're discussing now. Someone in two youtube videos is accusing @alsetalonkin of outright fraud not questioning for one second that if there were no fraud and what we see in the video really happened without external energy input this would be a violation of CoE and @alsetalonkin seems to like what that guy says. This begs the question, if this is fraud, as @alsetalonkin doesn't seem to object, why are we all bothering to pursue replication of this? On the other hand, if it isn't fraud and @alsetalonkin is really observing what he's presenting for us to see in the video why is he so adamantly pressing this cannot be violation of CoE especially provided the fact that violation of CoE has already been confirmed beyond any doubt? Why doesn't he just stick with the engineering part and leave science where he isn't too versed to begin with? Weird, isn't it?
Quote from: Omnibus on January 07, 2008, 02:48:20 PM
@Low-Q,
QuoteSo far you have just stated that this device is violating CoE because C to A is different from B to A. And not taken one single moment to explain why.
Why? Because B and C are not equipotential, as you insist they are in the presence of the magnet. Why not? Well, because the experiment shows that--if they were equipotential the ball wouldn't have moved from B to C.
Curiously, and that's the violation of CoE, when the ball is at B it prefers to lose energy in going towards C (in addition to the energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)| which it will lose anyway when it's back at A) rather than lose it (lose just the energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)|) by going back to A and obeying CoE.
And, by the way, learn some elementary physics. It isn't true that "The magnetic force at point C is therefor, in respect to A, greater than the magnetic force in point B." It's just the opposite, the magnetic force at B is greater than at A.
I forgot a few words there. My mistake. Now I assume you agree with the sentence.
br.
Vidar
@Low-Q,
If you now understand that at A the force of the magnetic field is weaker than at B, I agree.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2008, 12:38:23 PM
@tinu,
This incorrect. At B the ball has energy exactly (mgh1 + Mb) and nothing of the sorts you claim.
...
Huh?!!
This is high school physics.
@tinu,
Of course.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2008, 10:48:20 AM
@tinu,
The ball free falls from B to C. Correct. Who, however, supplied the energy to bring it at B from C in the first place?
In point 2 you incorrectly state that in going from B to C it loses energy from |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))|. The correct statement is, in going from B to C it loses energy from (mgh1 + Mb) which the ball has at B. Get it?
1. The magnetic force is greater in point C than in point B. Therfor.
2. The ball finds its resting point rather in point C than point B. That means loosing energy while going towards point C.
You're getting blind as you visually are seeing that point C is in higher level than point B. Visually, in respect to level A it is, but in the magnetic loop, point C is virtually at a lower level than point B - else the ball wouldn't move from B to C. Hence the ball will drop visually upwards to this point C. However, when the ball drops beyond point C it goes virtually uphill a bit, as the magnetic field in point C is not shut down and is therfor holding back the ball for a moment, before gravity force is greater than the magnetic force and the ball is accelerating towards point A. In the drawing below you'll see how this SMOT is working if we make an pure gravitally equivalent:
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2008, 01:00:04 PM
@Low-Q,
If you now understand that at A the force of the magnetic field is weaker than at B, I agree.
It has by fault been claimed by me that poit A has greater magnetic force than point B - because I forgot to write "at point C". I however, never ment that A was greater than B, but that Ppoint C is greater than B.
Vidar
@Low-Q,
Emphasize on this:
"2. The ball finds its resting point rather in point C than point B. That means loosing energy while going towards point C."
and tell me who provided the energy the ball has at B to be able to lose it, as you say, while going towards C. Someone must've pulled it (spent energy to pull it) earlier from C to B to allow it now to lose that energy while, as you say, going from B to C. Who did that?
I asked @inu the same question but haven't gotten an answer from him yet.
@Low-Q,
Emphasize on this:
"2. The ball finds its resting point rather in point C than point B. That means loosing energy while going towards point C."
and tell me who provided the energy the ball has at B to be able to lose it, as you say, while going towards C. Someone must've pulled it (spent energy to pull it) earlier from C to B to allow it now to lose that energy while, as you say, going from B to C. Who did that?
I asked @tinu the same question but haven't gotten an answer from him yet.
OK, @Low-Q, don't worry about that now. Everyone makes mistakes. Focus on the question I asked you.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2008, 01:29:32 PM
@Low-Q,
Emphasize on this:
"2. The ball finds its resting point rather in point C than point B. That means loosing energy while going towards point C."
and tell me who provided the energy the ball has at B to be able to lose it, as you say, while going towards C. Someone must've pulled it (spent energy to pull it) earlier from C to B to allow it now to lose that energy while, as you say, going from B to C. Who did that?
I asked @tinu the same question but haven't gotten an answer from him yet.
You have my answer posted! What part was not clear? I said ?the user provides mgh1+Mb-Ma to place the ball in B?. Read carefully if you are in mood of debating the issue.
Actually, thanks to the excellent drawing provided by Vidar I hope everyone can conclude this discussion. It is clear that the ball moves downward on the potential field and when it reaches its lowest point (A), the clever or the less clever user raise it back top hill (in B). I?d like to remain among the clever users and see that ALL the required energy is provided by me. No CoE violation. Not the slightest doubt about it. Input energy (A to B) -> Uphill movement. Free fall -> From B back to A, through C, which is just an intermediate point. Energy is conserved.
Tinu
@tinu,
This is incorrect, I already told you that. When the user moves the ball from A to B he or she causes the ball to lose magnetic potential energy. User isn't imparting magnetic potential energy from A to B. Therefore, here's the question again--who has supplied the magnetic potential energy Mb the ball has at B (by pulling the ball from C to B) which the ball further spontaneously loses when it goes from B to C? That was the question and you haven't answered it yet.
No comment. ::)
Here's a good one from @Grimer which is in reply to this "Come on folks, this video is either a ***fake/lie*** (bingo) or it's capturing energy from an unknown source or by means of an unknown method."
"... Al seems incapable of facing that possibility and keeps repeating "there ain't no free lunch" as though that mantra will exorcise the demon from his motor."
@Omnibus,
User isn?t imparting magnetic potential from A to B?!!
Are you a real physicist or what? This is the second big googoo on the same page!
Then what is (Mb-Ma) that appears in your equation mgh1+Mb-Ma?
I?ve told you a long time ago that just because you approach a ball to a magnetic setup it doesn?t mean that the magnets attract the ball and you don?t have to do work. But you don?t read or you don?t think about what you read.
Here is the same explanation, different wording so maybe you?ll finally see your mistake: THE BALL DOES NOT FREELY ENTER INTO THE SMOT. From B it equally can move toward C as well as toward the outside of SMOT. What does it means, doc? It means that the magnetic potential in B does not help you in placing the ball there when coming from A or from any other outside point. Magnetic field opposes to your force! You have to do more work than mgh1 when placing the ball in B in the presence of SMOT! Mb-Ma is always positive. mgh1+Mb-Ma>mgh1. Clear enough?
The moment when you experimentally prove that a ball is freely entering into the SMOT on a horizontal path, I just might agree that the user is not imparting magnetic potential. But since this is not the case, please review your wrong views. The only one who is incorrect here is you. All other people, physicists or not, have the common sense to see that you?re selling vegetables to the gardener.
And it?s also the time for you to forget about the other mistake in potential energy. The ball has in B any potential energy one might want to define. Saying it has mgh1+Mb means exactly the same as saying it has mgh1+Mb+C, as long as C is consistently applied to every potential energy under discussion.
Cheers,
Tinu
@tinu,
I read that and stopped reading further:
"User isn?t imparting magnetic potential from A to B?!!
Are you a real physicist or what? "
Please, learn first that user isn't imparting magnetic potential energy when moving the ball from A to B (when moving from A to B the ball is losing magnetic potential energy) and then come back.
Read further and learn.
See you tomorrow.
Anyone who is considering engaging with Omnibus on the issue of whether SMOT violates CoE might first want to take a look at these two threads:
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=23341&page=1
(2 weeks in November 2006 -- 363 posts)
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13991&page=1
(Sept. 2006 to July 2007 -- 3972 posts)
And then at these petition threads:
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=23321&page=1
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=60135&page=1
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=60134&page=1
And if you get through those, there are plenty more!
Now, what is the title of THIS thread? Notice anything funny about the last five pages?
>:(
QuoteAnyone who is considering engaging with Omnibus on the issue of whether SMOT violates CoE might first want to take a look at these two threads:
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=23341&page=1
(2 weeks back in November 2006 -- 363 posts)
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13991&page=1
(Sept. 2006 to July 2007 -- 3972 posts)
And then at these petition threads:
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=23321&page=1
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=60135&page=1
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=60134&page=1
And if you get through those, there are plenty more!
Now, notice this: what is the title of THIS thread? Notice anything funny about the last several pages?
Correct. That'll be interesting from a historical perspective. One day I'd also like to refresh my memory how this developed. Thank you for gathering and posting these links it is saving me a lot of time. If one isn't interested in the history of the question but of the actual argument sifting through these links would be just a waste of time. This argument went through a lot of modifications to make it clearer, that is, to say the same things in a more comprehensive way and, although many of these ways are still viable, I think the latest exchange is one of the clearest. So, stick to what we're discussing now and especially try to answer the question who has supplied the magnetic potential energy (by pulling the ball from C to B) which the ball loses when traveling from B to C.
Quote from: oak on January 08, 2008, 04:05:50 PM
Anyone who is considering engaging with Omnibus on the issue of whether SMOT violates CoE might first want to take a look at these two threads:......
Now, what is the title of THIS thread? Notice anything funny about the last five pages?
>:(
It's a shame this thread was diverted. It should be obvious that omnibus is not playing with a full deck.
Just ignore the poor fellow and he will subside.
@canam101,
I didn't divert it, you know. However, as I've always said, that analysis should always be invoked in such threads (this is the not the replicating but the theoretical one in this forum, isn't it) because you can see what confusion arises in some other forums when the analysis in question is forgotten and some people are desperately yelling at the motor the mantra "CoE cannot be violated" as if trying to exorcise the demons from it, as someone put it quite wittily. As for playing with a full deck, that's an unfair statement.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2008, 04:39:27 PM
@canam101,
I didn't divert it, you know. However, as I've always said, that analysis should always be invoked in such threads (this is the not the replicating but the theoretical one in this forum, isn't it) because you can see what confusion arises in some other forums when the analysis in question is forgotten and some people are desperately yelling at the motor the mantra "CoE cannot be violated" as if trying to exorcise the demons from it, as someone put it quite wittily. As for playing with a full deck, that's an unfair statement.
That's the point. The analysis should
not be invoked, because anyone who is "desperately yelling CoE cannot be violated" is
not going to be persuaded by it. So the analysis is just taking up space. It's ineffective. It's noise.
Even if it were true it would be noise because it isn't capable of achieving any useful result in the ten-thousand places where you believe it is your God-given right to express it. The effect is that you are just picking fights, over and over, that serve no useful purpose.
@oak,
Science requires to do the opposite of what you're saying.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2008, 05:13:15 PM
@oak,
Science requires to do the opposite of what you're saying.
Science does
not require the use of completely ineffective (and incidentally abusive) means to achieve ends.
Science is a totalitarian system. Truth is a dictator there. If someone is abusive when facing the truth that's his problem. Truth must prevail and not give in to exorcism and confusion as is seen to be the case with some trying to play scientists while having a frugal experience as such.
Quote from: canam101 on January 08, 2008, 04:28:01 PM
It should be obvious that omnibus is not playing with a full deck.
Canam101, I suppose I have to agree with you.
What would I do if I'm to play with a full deck, according to you?
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2008, 05:26:38 PM
What would I do if I'm to play with a full deck, according to you?
You would drop the fruitless attempt to persuade people that OU is real and violation of CoE is real, and wait until replicable, working, self-sustaining OU devices are being replicated on a daily basis. Until then, the argument over whether OU, and violation-of-CoE, are real is premature. It's not ripe. And with respect to non-looped SMOTs, it's particularly unripe, even if you are correct about SMOTs. Arguing about it just serves to generate a lot of hot air for no purpose, diverts threads that were intended for something else, and causes unnecessary anger.
I'm like you, Omnibus. I believe the day will come when replicable, working, self-sustaining OU devices will be being replicated on a daily basis. Like you, I believe it is important for people to see them working and realize it really is possible. But nothing that you say, before that day, is going to persuade someone who's not ready to believe it, that it is possible. Let them see it for themselves, when that day does come.
No, you're wrong. Proving that CoE can be violated can be and is achieved without having to produce a self-sustaining device. That's the point. Constructing a self-sustaining device is just an engineering application of that finding which may or may not be achieved and still violation of CoE will be real. Misunderstanding such as the one you demonstrate must be fought vigorously because it isn't based on science but only panders to the utilitarian aspect of some and, as observed, it feeds the cowardice and abandonment of basic principles. So there, I'm playing with full deck of cards.
I agree, though, as I've always said, that producing a working self-sustainig device will have a great psychological effect on society and will cause the acceptance of CoE violation easier. Pure science, however, doesn't take into account such psychological and sociological aspects, it's dispassionate, and forums such as this one are presumed to have scientific orientation rather than accommodate someone's psychological needs.
Forget the SMOT! What happened to the OC mpmm?
Someone posted this on youtube, what do you guys think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyuwtp2yekQ&watch_response
My moneys on clanzer to replicate it first, anyone want to put in?
wow Frezzer, i think thats the first mag motor that actually looks real! NICE FIND! :o
"Misunderstanding such as the one you demonstrate must be fought vigorously . . ."
That's where we disagree, for the various reasons I expressed above.
I'm done, for now.
You are a nut case.
@oak,
On the contrary, nut case is a person who would put up with exorcism and confusion in science and would let nonsense spread its ugly head unattended. We really disagree on that.
@Freezer,
I second that. @CLaNZedeR will have it first. Can't wait. @Jdo300's contribution should also be noted. He's the first to have it ready for a lot of people to reproduce it fast. Good luck to all brave explorers.
As for the motor in the link, that's not the real thing. Reminds me of @xpenzif's replication where no one actually reproduced it properly because it turned out the cylinder with the screws must be mounted on an 8-barrier stepper motor. That's @xpenzif's fault who disappeared and never instructed properly those who were trying to replicate the motor. Hope now we're in a different situation.
Xpenzif?s device was just a lousy fake.
In case anyone stumbles into this thread looking for discussion on "The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine," please note that it is being discussed in the following thread (which is currently up to 18 pages):
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3871.0.html
@tinu,
"Xpenzif?s device was just a lousy fake."
Did you try @xpenzif's device with 14 diagonal rows and a 8-barrier stepper motor? If not, you've no reason to say that..
I have a very good reason called intellect to say what I say. There is another reason called science. Another one called history.
One would invoke ?human nature? or ?greed? or ?desire for popularity?. But that?s another story.
Watch again these two excellent movies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyw5GKmOF64
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duZtNZZpNEc
I keep my views.
Not only xpenzif?s device is fake. So is Al?s, like I?ve already said at the beginning of this thread.
Time will confirm.
Tinu
is there any way to prevent omnibus from cluttering this thread? perhaps limit his amount of reply per day. i am sure i am not the only one who is sick of his blabber. hartiberlin can you do anything about this?
@tinu,
All of it may or may not be fake.You, however, have no reason to assert it's a fake. Your intelect is not the intelect of God to invoke it as an argument, let alone bring history as an argument. Bringing such arguments confirms you have no idea how science works. Science puts reproducible experiment first and there is one such experiment already proving violation of CoE which is the one I've already analyzed and proved beyond doubt that produces energy out of nothing. This also proves that the motors we're talking about are possible. If these two are fake there will inevitably be a real one constructed one day. As far as whether or not these motors are fake, we still don't know yet because reproductions of both @xpenzif's and @alsetalonkin's are still on the way.
@rice,
You and the likes of you who contribute nothing to the discussion at hand should be prevented from cluttering the thread.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 09, 2008, 12:54:17 PM
Science puts reproducible experiment first...
Show it. Is there any reproducible OU experiment? Nope.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 09, 2008, 12:54:17 PM
...violation of CoE which is the one I've already analyzed and proved beyond doubt ...
Your analysis is flawed.
I will not spend any more time to show your mistakes. It?s not worth the time. The burden is on you.
Cheers,
Tinu
thats right you contribute lots of headaches and grief. rebuttle all you want omnibus i know how i feel and how others feel. it is just sad to see a good topic go to hell from 1 person
@tinu,
Your's is wishful thinking by someone who, as you've already demonstrated, doesn't know elementary things pertaining to the discussion but pushes impudently into it. Restraint in such case is the best behavior. My argument is correct, it's based on a reproducible experiment and you shouldn't blabber it isn't just to clutter the thread.
As for the reproducible experiment regarding the motors efforts are in progress and one can't vow for them one way or the other at this moment. You stance regarding these motors is obviously untenable.
@rice,
Stop posting rubbish.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 09, 2008, 01:15:50 PM
@tinu,
Your's is wishful thinking by someone who, as you've already demonstrated, doesn't know elementary things pertaining to the discussion but pushes impudently into it. Restraint in such case is the best behavior. My argument is correct, it's based on a reproducible experiment and you shouldn't blabber it isn't just to clutter the thread.
As for the reproducible experiment regarding the motors efforts are in progress and one can't vow for them one way or the other at this moment. You stance regarding these motors is obviously untenable.
Right, you little dictator. ;)
And you were not even capable to write a one-page clear paper, but your proof is ?beyond any doubt?. Is this the way how your science works? No, thanks.
@tinu,
You don't know how science works. you've proved that already. Therefore, don't invoke it as an argument.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2008, 01:27:33 PM
@Low-Q,
Emphasize on this:
"2. The ball finds its resting point rather in point C than point B. That means loosing energy while going towards point C."
and tell me who provided the energy the ball has at B to be able to lose it, as you say, while going towards C. Someone must've pulled it (spent energy to pull it) earlier from C to B to allow it now to lose that energy while, as you say, going from B to C. Who did that?
I asked @inu the same question but haven't gotten an answer from him yet.
Two billion replies since yesterday ;D, so this is a very "late" reply to your post, but as you ask, I wish to answer.
Imagine this:
Look at the drawing I made. Who lifted the ball from C to B in the first place?
Option 1: You did, or at least some one did it. It cannot go from C to B by itself, nor via A. CoE is obeyed.
Option 2: No one did, and the ball has remained in point C all the time. CoE is obeyed.
Option 3: This is a model, a drawing showing a ball already in point B, explaining that the ball goes from B to C. Just an explanation form someones mind. CoE is obeyed.
Option 4: You're wrong. CoE is obeyed.
Option 5: You've been kidding with us all the time. CoE is obeyed.
Option 6: You never give up. CoE is violated - for a while.
Br.
Vidar
***** No personal assaults please - that applies to everyone. Be as objective as possible! *****
Low-Q,
Any time you want to carry out the experiment the ball is at A. Every time. You can repeat it as many times as you want and the ball will alway be at A at the start of the experiment. Therefore, it is obviously not me, as you insist, who have pulled the ball from C to place it at B so that the ball can lose magnetic potential energy in going spontaneously from B to C. Thus, you still haven't answered the question who put the ball at B (who has already spent the energy to pull the ball from C to B) so that the ball can spontaneously then lose that energy in going from B to C. This question persists. Violation of CoE is still proved beyond doubt.
In case anyone stumbles into this thread looking for discussion on "The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine," please note that that device (now called WhipMag, OCAL, and other things) is being discussed in the following thread (which is currently up to 19 pages):
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3871.0.html
THIS thread -- the one you are now in -- is mostly about Omnibus's Omnipresent assertion that violation of CoE has been "conclusively proven" by non-looped SMOTs. (With a side discussion on pp. 7-8 on whether there is any value in arguing about that claim.) You have been warned.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 09, 2008, 02:42:07 PM
Low-Q,
Any time you want to carry out the experiment the ball is at A. Every time. You can repeat it as many times as you want and the ball will alway be at A at the start of the experiment. Therefore, it is obviously not me, as you insist, who have pulled the ball from C to place it at B so that the ball can lose magnetic potential energy in going spontaneously from B to C. Thus, you still haven't answered the question who put the ball at B (who has already spent the energy to pull the ball from C to B) so that the ball can spontaneously then lose that energy in going from B to C. This question persists. Violation of CoE is still proved beyond doubt.
So now the question is how the ball is pulled from A to B, and not from C to B? Or is the ball starting in point A, and then suddenly pulled from C to B without going from A to C first, and you ask how the ball got from C to B? How did the ball go from A to C, in order to be pulled from C to B in the first place? By going from A via B to point C, and then by magic go back to point B so it again can go back to point C in order to violate CoE?
I must admit that your claims and ways of explaining is to me quite confusing. Maybe that's the trick to make your repliers mad ;D
Well, If the experiment allways starts in point A, the ball is then never leaving point A. There is no energy that pulls the ball to B, in order to spontaneously loose that energy by going to point C. Hence the ball never gets energy to be pulled from C to B. So you don't need the answer on how the ball is pulled from C to B. CoE is obeyed.
Br.
Vidar.
@Low-Q,
The question is how the ball gets pulled from C to B so that it then can lose the magnetic potential energy in going from B to C. That's the persistent question you haven't answered. Don't get off track.
When the ball was get pulled from C to B?
Its trajectory is from C to A to B. It?s never from C to B to A.
No, the trajectory is from B to C to A. Again, who supplied the magnetic potential energy (through pulling the ball from C to B) which the ball loses in going from B to C? Don't try to avoid this question.
Isn?t clear enough?
User inputs a lot more energy than C->B. It inputs A->B at every cycle.
Have a look again on the equivalent potential field provided by Vidar and draw your own if not satisfied. But the one below is pretty accurate. User spends work Epot(B)-Epot(A), which is then converted in heat by the free falling ball. Where is CoE violated?
@tinu,
That's the last try and then the exchange with you will be over. Who has imparted to the ball at B (by pulling it from C to B) the magnetic potential energy the ball loses spontaneously in going from B to C? You haven't answered this question, you're trying to escape answering it which I will not tolerate. Once again, the exchange with you will be over if you once again divert from answering that question.
Again: the ball is never pulled from C to B.
Nonetheless, all the required energy is providing by the user when lifting the ball from A to B.
Wrong. As I told you yesterday, go learn some physics and then come back.
And your answer to your question would be??
@tinu,
The exchange with you is over.
@ omnibus,
It crossed my mind that you don?t have an answer.
We?re done.
Thanks, good luck and goodbye!
@tinu,
I do have an answer and you might have understood it should you've known that in going from A to B, respectively, from B to C the ball loses magnetic potential energy. You didn't know that yesterday and therefore, I advised you to go back and refresh your knowledge of physics. You obviously don't know it today and you probably won't ever know it because of certain gaps you have in understanding some physical phenomena. I'm not hear to educate you but to have a discussion with people who at least have some basic understanding of the things considered. You're not this kind of person and I'm only wasting my time speaking to you. Therefore, as I already said, the exchange with you is now finished.
So, you are not done yet?
Ok then, dear Omnibus. Find out that you impudently persist in your flaw:
In going from A to B, the ball GAINS magnetic potential energy.
Think again:
mgh1+Mb-Ma>0 | lim(h1->0)
=> Mb>Ma
QED
See you around,
Tinu
This is real impudence. You were told that the conversation with you is finished, especially becuase you don't understand that Mb is not greater than Ma but you impudently persist with your nonsense.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 09, 2008, 03:34:30 PM
@Low-Q,
The question is how the ball gets pulled from C to B so that it then can lose the magnetic potential energy in going from B to C. That's the persistent question you haven't answered. Don't get off track.
You told me some months ago that the ball travels on the closed loop A-B-C-D. If this is true, then it is easy to see that the ball never gets pulled from C-B
@acp,
Correct. Before the experiment starts the ball never gets pulled from C to B. And, nevertheless it loses energy along B-C in the course of the experiment, that is, energy that hasn't been imparted to it at the start of the experiment is being lost during the experiment.Think about it, when you impart to the ball energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb))| to raise it from A to B then, if CoE is to be obeyed the ball must lose that exact amount, that is |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb))|, when it goes back to A and complete a closed loop. Not so, however, in our case of the ball completing a closed loop. The ball being at B (raised from A) and having energy (mgh1 + Mb) at B in our case doesn't lose energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)| when it goes back at A and closes the A-B-C-A loop. The ball in our case loses, as was said, energy Mb = (mgh2 + [KE + ...] ) as well as energy mgh1. This energy (that is the energy (mgh1 + Mb) which the ball loses in going from B back to A, closing the loop) is more than the energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)| that was imparted to it to raise it from A to B and that's a clear violation of CoE.
The above was explained many, many times and I think we should let this thread sink now because at this moment, having already firm conviction that CoE can be violated, we have to focus our efforts to apply this already confirmed violation of CoE in a practical device producing energy from nothing continuously, such as, for instance, the device presented by @alsetalonkin. So let us all move to the topic discussing the replication of that device.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 10, 2008, 04:05:47 AM
The above was explained many, many times and I think we should let this thread sink now because at this moment, having already firm conviction that CoE can be violated, we have to focus our efforts to apply this already confirmed violation of CoE in a practical device producing energy from nothing continuously, such as, for instance, the device presented by @alsetalonkin. So let us all move to the topic discussing the replication of that device.
Look, the vast majority of people here do not share this "firm conviction", so it's wishful thinking to say that. A little corroboration from some respected peers would go a long way here. Is there anyone at all in the respected scientific community who agrees with you? You have had a long time to disseminate your ideas - surely there must be someone. Is there anywhere we can read more abou this that was not written by you?
@shrugged,
There are colleagues agreeing with the argument but that's not the point. I suppose you know well that in science truth isn't established by voting and there is no dictatorship of the "vast majority" there. In science millions can be wrong and one can be right especially when many of those have no clue regarding the argument. I see you want to hear an independent opinion, however, unfortunately, I cannot engage in offering any names. As is usual in science every scientist is personally responsible for his own stance.
To help you understand the situation I'll mention something that happened in Oslo when I visited Finsrud. That's not connected with my argument but is still telling. Finsrud mentioned that a professor from the Physics department of Oslo University has analyzed his creation so I went to see that person only to hear that, yes, indeed the device works but there must be a trick. When I asked what that trick might be the person said he didn't know what exactly it is but there must be a trick. My astonishment went even further when I asked him if he would accept that it's a real perpetuum mobile if it were proven beyond any doubt that there's no trick and no other trivial explanation can account for it. He said straight to my face--no, even then he won't accept it. People are set in their ways, you know, mostly afraid for their jobs. Look how @alsetalonkin is behaving, ready to side with someone accusing him outright of fraud and cursing at him, rather than stand his ground. Speaking of Oslo, I met with another physics professor who has already retired from the department and you could immediately see the difference. While he was still skeptical, he felt embarrassed to hear a colleague would deny evidence at any rate and tried to excuse him saying that he didn't really mean that. He meant it, though. I can go on and on with giving you examples of how important ideas are prone to human frailties, as if it isn't well known in the history of science.
Have no doubt that the history will repeat itself if this device turns out to be what many of us here think it is. Don't expect to have many colleagues lining up to even see it let alone discuss the possibility that it violates CoE. As you can imagine, I, for one, would go out of my way to bring it to the attention of the scientific community if I see that my replica shows the effects from the video (let me also repeat for the umptieth time for some small minds here--giving full credit to @alsetalonkin). Don't hold your hopes high, though, it won't be an easy battle.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 09, 2008, 10:51:37 PM
This is real impudence. You were told that the conversation with you is finished, especially becuase you don't understand that Mb is not greater than Ma but you impudently persist with your nonsense.
Mb is greater than Ma, as proved. Demonstration is clearly posted above. (I have another demonstration also, leading to the same conclusion.) So, refute it if you can or shut the **** up.
You lately talk nothing but gibberish, once your mistake was revealed.
@tinu,
Stop with this nonsense.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 10, 2008, 04:05:47 AM
@acp,
Correct. Before the experiment starts the ball never gets pulled from C to B. And, nevertheless it loses energy along B-C in the course of the experiment, that is, energy that hasn't been imparted to it at the start of the experiment is being lost during the experiment.Think about it, when you impart to the ball energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb))| to raise it from A to B then, if CoE is to be obeyed the ball must lose that exact amount, that is |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb))|, when it goes back to A and complete a closed loop. Not so, however, in our case of the ball completing a closed loop. The ball being at B (raised from A) and having energy (mgh1 + Mb) at B in our case doesn't lose energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)| when it goes back at A and closes the A-B-C-A loop. The ball in our case loses, as was said, energy Mb = (mgh2 + [KE + ...] ) as well as energy mgh1. This energy (that is the energy (mgh1 + Mb) which the ball loses in going from B back to A, closing the loop) is more than the energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)| that was imparted to it to raise it from A to B and that's a clear violation of CoE.
The above was explained many, many times and I think we should let this thread sink now because at this moment, having already firm conviction that CoE can be violated, we have to focus our efforts to apply this already confirmed violation of CoE in a practical device producing energy from nothing continuously, such as, for instance, the device presented by @alsetalonkin. So let us all move to the topic discussing the replication of that device.
The above is nonsense, not my posts.
A little bit more and you would cry like a child in the hope that maybe some na?ves will accept your gibberish as a proof. Come on, you?re busted. You do not have a proof but plain BS.
@shruggedatlas,
Just to clarify although you may already know it. I have still some questions regarding Finsrud's device especially the fact that it can just be a very efficient re-distributor of the initially imparted energy. I offered to go back to Oslo and do some additional non-destructive experiments to have this possibility ruled out but Finsrud wasn't forthcoming. He's too burnt out after all these years. He's done this for over 30 years and I'm new to this. My interest was caught two years ago when I accidentally saw a fierce debate about SMOT. Before that I wouldn't even dream of questioning CoE. I'm a professional scientist, after all. Anyway, @Lister, @Demosthenes and several other good thinkers from the Steorn forum among the "vast majority" of lurkers with little or no competence are discussing Finsrud's device along these lines of a very efficient re-distributor of the initially imparted energy (aside from suggestion of fraud due to secretly strained springs which I still think unjustified). When @alsetalonkin's came about I was calling on @Lister to discuss it in these terms and explain the acceleration. He didn't show up, unfortunately. Observed acceleration in Finsrud's machine @Lister explains by offering the example of a spinning coin, accelerating at the end. That's not plausible here (in Finsrud's too) because while with the coin the moment of inertia changes causing the acceleration to conserve angular momentum, there's no change here (especially before stopping by hand of the two stators) and yet the device accelerates.
@tinu,
That's ridiculous. Consult with someone knowledgeable you trust and see if you're right about Ma and Mb.
Omnibus:
You have shit in your pants. I can smell it ;D LOL!!
Maybe you shoud go cleaning yourself up by giving a detailed and educational correct explanation to your statement, so all of us stupid, super-blonde and multi-retarded chicken-bimbo heads can learn something from a multi-science-knowhow-super-intelligent and perfectly flawless person - as written between your lines. So far we have all learned that someone simply don't give up, even if they shit in their pants. And you are the person who smells here!! No offence, by the way ;)
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on January 10, 2008, 04:26:06 PM
Omnibus:
You have shit in your pants. I can smell it ;D LOL!!
Maybe you shoud go cleaning yourself up by giving a detailed and educational correct explanation to your statement, so all of us stupid, super-blonde and multi-retarded chicken-bimbo heads can learn something from a multi-science-knowhow-super-intelligent and perfectly flawless person - as written between your lines. So far we have all learned that someone simply don't give up, even if they shit in their pants. And you are the person who smells here!! No offence, by the way ;)
Vidar
I'm quoting this for all to see what nonsense persons having no arguments are ready to post as a substitute. Now, that's for a moderator to take care of, isn't it?
@ omnibus
No, it isn?t!
The moderator should have kicked you out a long time ago, Omnibus.
You are contributing only BS all along and it?s YOU that don?t have arguments.
A lot of posts but all are NONSENSE OF ZERO VALUE.
And the mere fact that you always write something more in response (irrelevant, nonetheless) does not change your null value. Now, back to the issue: do you have a REAL PROOF? Do you have more arguments besides the flawed Ma>Mb? Because if you don?t have, I?ll keep my request: go play with SMOTs, with potential energy definition and its meaning and when you?re ready to say something RELEVANT, come back. Meanwhile, shut the f*** up!
Cheers,
Tinu
@tinu,
On the contrary. You should be banned for flooding the thread with your nonsense. Mb isn't greater than Ma. Go check that with some knowledgeable person you trust and then come back here and apologize.
@omnibus,
Carefully read my post above and try to understand its meaning. Take one word at a time, slowly, at your pace. You can also ask for professional help if needed. Also do whatever it takes to keep your hands occupied with something else than the keyboard. Maybe Vidar?s suggestion would be a good start. ;D
When you are ready to post a real proof (not BS and similar) you are welcome to come back and discuss it.
Like I said, admit first that Mb isn't greater than Ma and we'll continue. You don't know elementary things to deserve attention.
On a horizontal plane put your ball in A and check what happens with it and come back.
Oh, one more: What?s sure? You need professional?
Go away. Learn some physics first and then come back.
You came back too fast and now it smells all over.
Do this simple experiment first. It?s simple.
I?ll help you later to interpret it.
You do it. And think why you see what you see. It isn't because Ma is less than Mb for sure. You are ridiculous and don't even know how ridiculous you are. Check with someone else here in the forum with good knowledge of physics. Ask even @shruggedatlas who is no expert in physics. She was making that mistake in the past. I think even she already understands that.
You are sooo close to your final proof and yet keep talking plain BS...
There is only one explanation: this is the real proof of your lack of any proof, isn?t it? ;)
Here is another even simpler experiment, as suggested earlier by an astute student: weight your ball in A with a non-magnetic balance. And tell everyone how much it weights. Try several points from A to B. Then maybe you?ll understand something along.
Simpler than that it can?t be, dear guru of CoE violation!
Like I said, first understand that Ma isn't less than Mb and then come here to discuss and propose experiments.
Fell free to post more crap, as much as you wish.
I guess everyone got the picture. Besides, it?s late and I?m going to bed.
Though, one more question:
Have you visited Tseung?s thread lately?
Get used to it.
You may want one for yourself.
That's right, everyone got the picture already. You're confusing force with energy and that's a common confusion among novices. Prudent novices, unlike you, try to learn something and are not arrogant and obnoxious.
The Ma versus Mb is something I have actually wondered about. From one standpoint A is farther away from the center of the magnets than B, so there should be higher potential magnetic energy at A. On the other hand, if A is so far away from the magnet center that it will never get to it, does it have any magnetic potential at all?. This is very confusing to me and I have no idea which is right. I suppose you could say that because gravity is stronger than the magnetic pull at A, this is why the ball remains at rest at A, but in fact it does have greater potential energy than it would at B. On the other hand, the magnetic field only extends so far, and even in gravity-free space, if A is just too far from the magnets to be attracted at all, you would have to say the magnetic potential is zero.
It's like taking an object 10 light years away from the sun, in empty space. What is its gravitational potential energy? One should conclude that it's zero, since it is too far away to be attracted (assume that's true - I am not an expert in astronomy). Or would you assume gravity is there?
@shruggedatlas,
Focus just on the magnetic field and recall that the magnetic field force changes with distance unlike the force of gravity which is practically constant at all distances in our case. Then, recall what potential energy is. This is energy of the position isn't it and amounts to work necessary to move the ball from one position to another in the conservative field? Ma is the work necessary to be done to move the ball in question from C to A while Mb is equal to the work to move it from C to B, correct? Now recall what's work--force time distance, isn't it? Because of the changing magnitude of the magnetic field force Ma and Mb are integrals of that force time distance, correct? Thus, although at A (which is more distant than B from C) the force of the magnetic field is smaller than at B the integral in question at A is greater than that at B. Thus, in going from A to B the ball loses magnetic potential energy because Ma > Mb. Does this make it clearer?
Quote from: Omnibus on January 10, 2008, 07:45:17 PM
Thus, although at A (which is more distant than B from C) the force of the magnetic field is smaller than at B the integral in question at A is greater than that at B.
From the cycle: ?Integral calculus for kinder garden?: Let?s play math and science. Where is my proof, mom?
Quote from: Omnibus on January 10, 2008, 07:45:17 PM
Thus, in going from A to B the ball loses magnetic potential energy because Ma > Mb. Does this make it clearer?
From the cycle ?Circular logic is my middle name?: It is so because it has to be so and I said it is so already! Clear?
Well, not sure but it could be also from the cycle?I am the God of science?. And shut up or I'll say it again and again, then it surely has to be so. Clear? Don't answer! You annoy me already, you impudent ignorant!
Quote from: Omnibus on January 10, 2008, 06:16:51 PM
That's right, everyone got the picture already. You're confusing force with energy and that's a common confusion among novices. Prudent novices, unlike you, try to learn something and are not arrogant and obnoxious.
That's surely from the cycle ?Maybe others will buy it?: Let?s thrown with shit around anyway; I have plenty of it already.
Does F=-grad(E) mean something to you?
I guess it should, but then you?d know that measuring force is also a measure of magnetic potential variation.
Tinu
@tinu,
Stop posting crap here.
@ omnibus
You started. And keep continuing posting crap.
@tinu,
This is not the way to save face. Admit your mistake, apologize and go on with the discussion. Otherwise you're deepening the shame you sank in.
@omnibus
Apologize for what? !!!
You have to apologize for not being able to prove what you claim that proved already. Either apology for the lack of any consistent proof or for your obvious flaws would suffice.
@tinu,
Apologize for confuzsing force with energy.
??? Well, this thread is SMOT to hell so there's no harm in stepping in with a timeout task. ???
http://forum.hcrs.at/viewtopic.php?t=18 (http://forum.hcrs.at/viewtopic.php?t=18)
Personally I'd love to see a working closed loop SMOT in a museum sometime in the future, but until it learns to stay in it's own thread I can't stop thinking of it as a late night, low budget, info commercial aimed at the gullible and misguided.
This is my one and only SMOT reaction ever, so don't even bother trying to suck me into replying. I loathe the useless tiring OT banter on any subject in any thread, and I'm virtually immune to it but today is my day to lash out, so read into this what you may.
tak has left the thread
I have some additional information regarding the SMOT config.
As the ball allways starts in point A - as stated by Omnibus, the ball is in fact repelled away from the magnets with that distance. The magnetic fields from two magnets a few inches apart will in fact repel magnetic materials in a certain distance with greater force as you're going closer to the magnets - untill it gets close enough to the magnets where it at first is not repelled or attracted, then it is gradually more and more attraction. That means that the magnets "automaticly" evens out all forces between the ball and the magnetic ramp. You can also simulate these forces in FEMM by running a script that moves the ball from a given distance, and towards the gap between two magnets located a few inches apart from each other.
Nothing new to science this fenomena, but I guess it's important to mention, as there has been discussions about which of Ma or Mb has the greatest potential energy.
Br.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on January 11, 2008, 10:26:24 AM
I have some additional information regarding the SMOT config.
As the ball allways starts in point A - as stated by Omnibus, the ball is in fact repelled away from the magnets with that distance. The magnetic fields from two magnets a few inches apart will in fact repel magnetic materials in a certain distance with greater force as you're going closer to the magnets - untill it gets close enough to the magnets where it at first is not repelled or attracted, then it is gradually more and more attraction. That means that the magnets "automaticly" evens out all forces between the ball and the magnetic ramp. You can also simulate these forces in FEMM by running a script that moves the ball from a given distance, and towards the gap between two magnets located a few inches apart from each other.
Nothing new to science this fenomena, but I guess it's important to mention, as there has been discussions about which of Ma or Mb has the greatest potential energy.
Br.
Vidar
This quote shows to what great lengths of ridiculousness one can get in his desperate attempts not to admit his mistakes.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 11, 2008, 11:00:32 AM
Quote from: Low-Q on January 11, 2008, 10:26:24 AM
I have some additional information regarding the SMOT config.
As the ball allways starts in point A - as stated by Omnibus, the ball is in fact repelled away from the magnets with that distance. The magnetic fields from two magnets a few inches apart will in fact repel magnetic materials in a certain distance with greater force as you're going closer to the magnets - untill it gets close enough to the magnets where it at first is not repelled or attracted, then it is gradually more and more attraction. That means that the magnets "automaticly" evens out all forces between the ball and the magnetic ramp. You can also simulate these forces in FEMM by running a script that moves the ball from a given distance, and towards the gap between two magnets located a few inches apart from each other.
Nothing new to science this fenomena, but I guess it's important to mention, as there has been discussions about which of Ma or Mb has the greatest potential energy.
Br.
Vidar
This quote shows to what great lengths of ridiculousness one can get in his desperate attempts not to admit his mistakes.
Now you're quite far from being objective, or what?
Maybe it's time for you to explain your version of the trouth. With that many words you have written in this thread, you could easily used that energy to write a pretty detailed explanation about how this SMOT works, instead of asking
us how it works, just to reply that we have the wrong answers all the time, and then writing tortious words to every one that are questioning your findings/theory.
Can I kindly ask you to explain it to us even if we disagree with you, or do we have to agree with you first? If you do not have an explanation, no one can be able to discuss the theory in detail with you. Do you have a problem with that?
Br.
Vidar
Quote from: Omnibus on January 10, 2008, 09:25:27 PM
@tinu,
Apologize for confuzsing force with energy.
What kind of role model are you with this kind of attitude?
If a child is falling in the first attemts to walk. Do you punish him, or do you encourage him to try again? Try to see the parallells here, and be little less sensitive to mistakes!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vidar
Dictionary definition : omni-
L. omni-, combining form of omnis "all, every," of unknown origin, perhaps lit. "abundant," from *op-ni-, from PIE base *op- "to work, produce in abundance" (see opus
bus - Acronym : bu = bull s = shit
Omnibus = ALL BULLSHIT
It should now be obvious and completely "proven beyond all doubt"!
@Low-Q,
First learn that Ma > Mb and that Mb > Mc, understand the difference between force and energy, never utter other stupidities such as that at A the steel ball is being repelled by the magnets and so on and then come here to discuss. Instead of being ashamed of yourself and quietly watch what's going on so that you can learn something you're participating in multiple threads arrogantly spewing utter nonsense teaching others what is and what isn't. This has to stop.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on January 10, 2008, 07:12:07 PM
The Ma versus Mb is something I have actually wondered about.Ã, From one standpoint A is farther away from the center of the magnets than B, so there should be higher potential magnetic energy at A.Ã, On the other hand, if A is so far away from the magnet center that it will never get to it, does it have any magnetic potential at all?.
Hi Shrugged,
This is easily solved.Ã, If you adopt the convention of calling the magnetic potential energy zero when you are far from the magnets, then it is negative close in.Ã, Same for gravity wells.
Think of it as an energy debt that you must pay in order to escape the attraction.
Tada,
Mr. Entropy
EDIT: P.S. Omnibus is still wrong :-)
@Mr.Entropy,
Don't get @shruggedatlass confused. The convention here is that the zero of the magnetic potential energy is at the magnet exactly the way @shruggedatlass understands it. What she and some others are confused about is the difference between force and energy. I explained it above to her and she should now understand it.
EDIT: Of course, I'm not wrong. Those who confuse force with energy are wrong.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 11, 2008, 08:30:04 PM
@Low-Q,
First learn that Ma > Mb and that Mb > Mc...
This is just a hypothesis (an erroneous one for SMOT nevertheless), which is supported by nothing else than crappy posts.
@tinu,
Restrain from showing your incompetence. You've shown enough.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 11, 2008, 08:30:04 PM
@Low-Q,
First learn that Ma > Mb and that Mb > Mc, understand the difference between force and energy, never utter other stupidities such as that at A the steel ball is being repelled by the magnets and so on and then come here to discuss. Instead of being ashamed of yourself and quietly watch what's going on so that you can learn something you're participating in multiple threads arrogantly spewing utter nonsense teaching others what is and what isn't. This has to stop.
Force and energy is two different things. I know that very well - maybe more well than you do. If the above quote is your only explanation, I understand you have much lack of infomation to support the claim: Ma > Mb > Mc and why this is violating CoE.
I'm still waiting for a detailed explanation.
You should also learn the difference between acceptance and understanding. This far you have only demanded acceptence without giving anyone of us the opportunity to understand by giving us an explanation
why Ma > Mb > Mc = violating CoE. Until this explanation shows up, you cannot expect anyone to take you seriously! Really!
PS! If you're looking for goodwill and acceptance, your way to communicate with other members is NOT the way of doing it!
Vidar
This last posting is a proof you have no understanding. The fact that Ma > Mb and that Mb > Mc isn't in itself a proof that CoE is violated. That is a fact which you don't understand, not that it proves violation of CoE. As I already said, convincing yourself of that fact is a prerequisite for understanding of any further argument.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 12, 2008, 07:44:48 AM
This last posting is a proof you have no understanding. The fact that Ma > Mb and that Mb > Mc isn't in itself a proof that CoE is violated. That is a fact which you don't understand, not that it proves violation of CoE. As I already said, convincing yourself of that fact is a prerequisite for understanding of any further argument.
And this last posting is yet another proof that you still dont know how to explain your claim. I'm still waiting for the detailed explanation. Untill then, no further comments.
Vidar
This is a useless exchange. Learn some physics first before trying to understand this argument. This thread contains enough explanation to know the answer if you're prepared.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 12, 2008, 08:01:31 AM
This is a useless exchange. Learn some physics first before trying to understand this argument. This thread contains enough explanation to know the answer if you're prepared.
Try again. I'm patient.
You got new PM, by the way.
Vidar
Here the steel ball is forced away from the SMOT - right before it enters it:
Don't bother. You can't prove the unprovable. Like I said, learn some physics first and then come back for a discussion.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 12, 2008, 08:50:00 PM
You can't prove the unprovable.
You should take note of your own words regarding your own unproved violation of C of E claims!
Low-Q makes a good point. I have always wondered about this. I have experimented with magnets for a long time now, including the SMOT. It takes "energy" to place the ball in a position to be influenced by the SMOT and this should not be ignored.
Bill
@Pirate88179,
Make no mistake, @Low-Q has no point, let alone his confusion about the difference between force and energy (which he denies but he actually has). To understand this analysis always think of the energy of the ball and of nothing else. That's first. Second, always think of the energy that the ball has exactly at A, at B and at C before it gets back exactly at A. If CoE were obeyed the ball would have lost the exact amount |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb))| of energy, which the ball has acquired when moved from A to B, in spontaneously going back exactly along the same route but in the opposite sense--from B back to A. The ball in the discussed case, however, goes spontaneously along a different route whereby it loses also energy Mb it has at B in moving spontaneously towards C (which it wouldn't have lost if it were to go back spontaneously from B directly back to A thus obeying CoE). I've explained this many, many times and I don't think one needs to repeat it constantly because someone confuses enegy with force or has other gaps in understanding physics.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 12, 2008, 09:28:21 PM
@Pirate88179,
Make no mistake, @Low-Q has no point, let alone his confusion about the difference between force and energy (which he denies but he actually has). To understand this analysis always think of the energy of the ball and of nothing else. That's first. Second, always think of the energy that the ball has exactly at A, at B and at C before it gets back exactly at A. If CoE were obeyed the ball would have lost the exact amount |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb))| of energy, which the ball has acquired when moved from A to B, in spontaneously going back exactly along the same route but in the opposite sense--from B back to A. The ball in the discussed case, however, goes spontaneously along a different route whereby it loses also energy Mb it has at B in moving spontaneously towards C (which it wouldn't have lost if it were to go back spontaneously from B directly back to A thus obeying CoE). I've explained this many, many times and I don't think one needs to repeat it constantly because someone confuses enegy with force or has other gaps in understanding physics.
I talk about energy as a function of force times distance. You on the other hand seems to forget the distance versus force, which is important to understand the whole picture of CoE.
So you think that magnetism is the reason? Don't you forget that magnetism still influence the ball between C and A? The thing is that the ball could likely go directly from A to C as from A to B. If we compare the forces times distance (Wich is energy), between A-B and A-C, you'll find that the required energy to lift the ball from A to C is the same as from A to B, on the understanding that point A is the absolute lowest level in respect to gravity + magnetic forces.
If the ball prefers to go to C via B, just means that point A isn't the point with the absolute neutral starting point. Have you forgot that too?
Br.
Vidar
No, that's incorrect.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 13, 2008, 09:09:22 AM
No, that's incorrect.
I can see your explanation, where the route A-B-C is different from A-B. But the energy used in route A-B-C-A equals A-C-A.
Using x and y coordinates, you'll see that the energy you use is to lift the ball upwards in y direction. Moving the ball sideways in the x direction does not require energy. Therefor you are just spending longer time via B to lift the ball from A to C.
Say that A is in both x and y direction 10cm to the right of and 10cm lower than point B. In x direction, point B and C are 20cm apart, in y direction they are 2cm apart, where C is in y direction 2 cm higher than point B. The distance between A and C in x direction is 10cm, and in y direction 12 cm.
To lift the ball 12cm requires energy. If you lift the ball 12cm via B, the required amount of energy is exactly the same as lifting the ball 12 cm directly from A.
So at least two question remains:
- Will the ball, by magnetic attraction, be lifted from A to B? (This is a condition in order to make it from B to C, and back to A)
- And where is the excess energy you talk about? Is the excess energy temporary, or constant?
Vidar
@Low-Q,
Stop cluttering the thread with this nonsense.
Low-Q's claim can be tested easily, so there is no point arguing about it. Just put a steel ball on a very very slight decline, so it rolls very slowly. At one end of the decline is a SMOT. If the ball rolls into the SMOT, never decelerating, then Low-Q is incorrect. On the other hand, if the ball does not roll into the SMOT, or at least decelerates before entering, then he is correct.
@shruggedatlas,
Try that and report the result here. Your time is yours to waste.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 14, 2008, 12:03:35 AM
@shruggedatlas,
Try that and report the result here. Your time is yours to waste.
I have the balls to try - litteraly - and the magnets - LOTS of them. I just need a track. That should be easy to make. I'm a free man this evening, just some cleaning and washing clothes to do before my better half is coming home tonight. If I got time, the SMOT-result will be posted here - hopefully with a video.
Br,
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on January 13, 2008, 02:25:29 PM
Moving the ball sideways in the x direction does not require energy.
Nice,
Could you build me a car like that?
Quote from: Omnibus on January 13, 2008, 07:51:47 PM
@Low-Q,
Stop cluttering the thread with this nonsense.
I'm not. THIS is cluttering with nonsense: "Stop cluttering the thread with this nonsense."!!.
I like to explain things, about how the real world work. I like to provide examples on how a device will work based on common sense, basic physics, and experiments. It would be nice if you could do the same.
Vidar
Quote from: gaby de wilde on January 14, 2008, 08:48:58 AM
Quote from: Low-Q on January 13, 2008, 02:25:29 PM
Moving the ball sideways in the x direction does not require energy.
Nice,
Could you build me a car like that?
Those cars are already on the market**
You have to fight against friction. Without friction the sum of energy spent by moving a 1.5 ton of car any distance does not require energy at all. What you use to acellerate the car, you get back by deaccelerating it till full stop.
**Electric cars are recharging batteries when breaking down, by utilize the energy it spent to accelerate to drive a generator that charges the batteries.
However, there is the friction through air and between the tires and the ground, and some friction in the gearbox that consumes energy. A gasoline car does not make gasoline when breaking, it uses pure friction to stop, and waste the energy the engine used to accelerate.
Br.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on January 14, 2008, 09:07:25 AM
I like to explain things, about how the real world work. I like to provide examples on how a device will work based on common sense, basic physics, and experiments. It would be nice if you could do the same.
Vidar
@Vidar
Don't hold your breathe. Omnibus is only capable of semantics and pushing his own opinions using the "Goebels" effect.
Quote from: hoptoad on January 15, 2008, 04:29:04 PM
Quote from: Low-Q on January 14, 2008, 09:07:25 AM
I like to explain things, about how the real world work. I like to provide examples on how a device will work based on common sense, basic physics, and experiments. It would be nice if you could do the same.
Vidar
@Vidar
Don't hold your breathe. Omnibus is only capable of semantics and pushing his own opinions using the "Goebels" effect.
I think so. The Joseph Goebbels effect is used by many people when "The truth is too terrible for most to conceive, and the lie is too comfortable". Omnibus are by my opinion still wrong about his claims regarding the discussed topic.
Quote from: Low-Q on January 16, 2008, 12:51:13 PM
Quote from: hoptoad on January 15, 2008, 04:29:04 PM
Quote from: Low-Q on January 14, 2008, 09:07:25 AM
I like to explain things, about how the real world work. I like to provide examples on how a device will work based on common sense, basic physics, and experiments. It would be nice if you could do the same.
Vidar
@Vidar
Don't hold your breathe. Omnibus is only capable of semantics and pushing his own opinions using the "Goebels" effect.
I think so. The Joseph Goebbels effect is used by many people when "The truth is too terrible for most to conceive, and the lie is too comfortable". Omnibus are by my opinion still wrong about his claims regarding the discussed topic.
Learn physics first before labeling people.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 10, 2008, 07:45:17 PM
Focus just on the magnetic field and recall that the magnetic field force changes with distance unlike the force of gravity which is practically constant at all distances in our case. Then, recall what potential energy is. This is energy of the position isn't it and amounts to work necessary to move the ball from one position to another in the conservative field? Ma is the work necessary to be done to move the ball in question from C to A while Mb is equal to the work to move it from C to B, correct? Now recall what's work--force time distance, isn't it? Because of the changing magnitude of the magnetic field force Ma and Mb are integrals of that force time distance, correct? Thus, although at A (which is more distant than B from C) the force of the magnetic field is smaller than at B the integral in question at A is greater than that at B. Thus, in going from A to B the ball loses magnetic potential energy because Ma > Mb. Does this make it clearer?
The above quoted analysis is correct. Its intent was to define the magnetic potential and explain why it can be non-zero even when the ball feels little force attracting it to the magnets, but not necessarily to explain why Ma > Mb, which is handled elsewhere.
As Mr. Entropy has explained in this post,
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3833.msg70708.html#msg70708 ,
point B, defined by Omnibus as the input of the SMOT ramp, is outside a field null, because the must ball feel an attractive force which draws it from B all the way to C. Because point A is farther than point B from the nulls near the ends of the magnets, positive work is required to move the ball from B to A, thus Ma > Mb.
We must note that in the above linked post, Mr. Entropy defines zero magnetic potential as where the ball is separated from the magnets by infinite distance, and a negative value everywhere else. Omnibus defines zero potential as occurring at point C, and positive everywhere else. These definitions differ merely by a constant; Omnibus sets Mc = 0 while Mr. Entropy would set it as some negative number. By either definition, moving the ball from C to A, from C to B or from B to A requires a particular amount positive work against the magnetic field, respectively Ma - Mc, Mb - Mc and Ma - Mb, or simply Ma, Mb and Ma - Mb when Mc=0.
In addition to Ma > Mb, as a result of Omnibus? successful demonstration of the ball climbing the ramp from B to C and falling from C to A, we also know that Mb > mgh2 and Mb + mgh1 >= Ma. If these inequalities were not true, the ball would fail to rise all the way to C, get stuck at C, or fail to fall all the way to A.
Having started at point B and arrived tt point C, the ball has lost magnetic potential Mb while gaining gravitational potential mgh2, and this net loss in potential is reflected in a gain in kinetic energy,
Kc = Mb - mgh2.
Now, as Omnibus has clearly explained above, ?[focusing just on the magnetic field] Ma is the work necessary to be done to move the ball in question from C to A?. Thus after the ball has rounded the bend at C and arrived at A, it has gained magnetic potential Ma and lost gravitational potential mgh2 + mgh1. The kinetic energy of the ball at A will then be the sum of the kinetic energy at C and the net loss in potential along C to A,
Ka = Kc + mgh2 + mgh1 - Ma
= Mb - mgh2 + mgh2 + mgh1 - Ma
= mgh1 + Mb - Ma.
This is of course exactly the potential energy at point B, i.e. the energy that was expended by the hand to lift the ball from A to B, as has been explained in numerous previous posts.
An intriguing circumstance is when the track at point A is horizontal or gently sloping, such that the ball experiences little or no net downward force by gravity unmatched by upward force of the track. It is then theoretically or perhaps even practically possible to locate point A where Ma = Mb + mgh1. In this case, when the ball traverses the B-C-A segment, it arrives with Ka = mgh1 + Mb - Ma = mgh1 + Mb - (Mb + mgh1) = 0, however because Ma > Mb, the ball will nevertheless experience an attraction towards B. The hand must supply mgh1 + Mb - Ma to place the ball at B, but mgh1 + Mb - Ma = 0 in this case. So the ball can theoretically traverse A to B with no help from the hand, and the ball again at B could again traverse B-C-A and the SMOT could self-sustain, as long as nothing were to cause the ball to arrive at A with less than Ka = mgh1 + Mb - Ma worth of kinetic energy.
You're maybe correct, but the gravitional force at point A is too much for the ball to move upwards to point B, where the ball in addition is met by an extra downforce due to the small area of repulsion before it arrives at B. However, if point A was much closer to the magnets, it might be lifted a little bit, but then the the ball also would be more sensitive to the magnets in point C as well, and maybe gently moved/rolled in direction of, but below, point C (?). As the magnets are tilted a bit upwards in point C, the flux density the ball "feels" might be most neutral in x-direction right between but below point B and C (?)
I however think that Omnibus is right IF the ball would be lifted by itself from point A to point B, but that will never happen, or what? That is the point where I get a little bit confused.
Br.
Vidar
@ modervador,
Very good post! It pretty much summarizes most of what was told on the subject.
And glad to see you here!
I?d pretty much like to hear your thoughts on the following:
1. Ka=mgh1+Mb-Ma is also the energy hand supplies. Hence, in the absence of friction and any other loses and also by using a bend& appropriate track, SMOT will, of course, self sustain. But no gain of energy.
2. Why do you think omnibus sees a gain of energy in SMOT? (The answer is not clear to me to these days?)
Welcome again,
Tinu
@Modervador,
You have stated this argument before but I?ve already told you that it is wrong because you don?t realize that the energy Mb the ball has at B (in addition to the energy mgh1 it also has at B) and which transforms equivalently into (mgh2 + Kc) at C, according to the not-violated here ?transformation? part of CoE, has appeared out of nothing.
I repeat, if CoE is to be obeyed and Ein = Eout, the ball at B must lose exactly the amount (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)), that is, exactly the amount of energy imparted to it from a known source along A-B.
In the observed case, however, the ball at B loses Mb (which transforms equivalently into other forms of energy such as mgh1 and Kc) in addition to mgh1 which it will inevitably lose when back at A. Thus, the ball at B in the discussed case loses, that is, converts into other kinds of energies, the energy (mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) and not (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc - Ma) as you incorrectly state. Observed inequality Ein =/= Eout, that is (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) =/= (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) is a clear violation of CoE.
It is interesting to note that the ball is spontaneously recharged with the energy Mb, available at B for the ball to spontaneously transfer in other kinds of energy (such as the mentioned mgh2 and Kc), when the ball completes the loop at A. Thus, upon a subsequent loop the researcher again encounters the same surprising fact, namely, that the ball at B has spontaneously available to transform into other energies (and actually transforms it) greater energy (mgh1 + Mb) than just the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) he or she imparted to it. That isn?t the case if CoE were obeyed?if CoE were obeyed, the ball at B would have transformed into other energies only exactly the amount (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) the researcher has imparted to it.
Hope from the above you can also figure out why the fact you seem to emphasize that when back at A the ball has again energy Ma available to it, provided a subsequent loop is to be carried out, isn?t a proof that CoE is obeyed.
Quote from: Low-Q on January 17, 2008, 05:27:38 PM
You're maybe correct, but the gravitional force at point A is too much for the ball to move upwards to point B, where the ball in addition is met by an extra downforce due to the small area of repulsion before it arrives at B. However, if point A was much closer to the magnets, it might be lifted a little bit, but then the the ball also would be more sensitive to the magnets in point C as well, and maybe gently moved/rolled in direction of, but below, point C (?). As the magnets are tilted a bit upwards in point C, the flux density the ball "feels" might be most neutral in x-direction right between but below point B and C (?)
I however think that Omnibus is right IF the ball would be lifted by itself from point A to point B, but that will never happen, or what? That is the point where I get a little bit confused.
Hi Vidar, I hope that I might relieve what part of the confusion I may have caused.
The case I was discussing at the end was mainly mental exercise that is of no practical use except for academic entertainment. It is the particular case where Ma = Mb + mgh1. This means the ball can theoretically get from A to B with no net change in potential. You correctly point out that whether the ball can do this in practice depends on whether the pull from the magnet towards point B can overcome the pull of gravity while at point A. This is why I stated that one condition is that "the track at point A is horizontal or gently sloping, such that the ball experiences little or no net downward force by gravity unmatched by upward force of the track." The track keeps the ball from falling straight down and the trajectory from A to B is largely horizontal. One way to do this is have point A to the left of B instead of under the magnets, and of course the track from C to A will have to be shaped accordingly; this would differ somewhat from the picture that we're used to seeing.
The ball gains kinetic energy on the way from A to B as it loses magnetic potential. If there is any "speedbump of potential" along the way, the ball can surmount it only if the bump is lower than the ball's current kinetic energy when it encounters it. It's possible, I think.
Omnibus is correct that "Ma is the work necessary to be done to move the ball in question from C to A? against the magnetic field regardless of whether this case I described can be practically achieved or whether the ball goes from A to B without help from the hand. The phenomena are independent of each other.
Quote from: tinu on January 17, 2008, 06:36:02 PM
@ modervador,
Very good post! It pretty much summarizes most of what was told on the subject.
And glad to see you here!
Iââ,¬â,,¢d pretty much like to hear your thoughts on the following:
1. Ka=mgh1+Mb-Ma is also the energy hand supplies. Hence, in the absence of friction and any other loses and also by using a bend& appropriate track, SMOT will, of course, self sustain. But no gain of energy.
2. Why do you think omnibus sees a gain of energy in SMOT? (The answer is not clear to me to these daysââ,¬Â¦)
Welcome again,
Tinu
Thanks Tinu. This is an interesting forum.
I agree with point 1, and am glad you finished the train of thought for me.
As for point 2, I believe the current reason is that Omnibus does not recall his own statement, "Ma is the work necessary to be done to move the ball in question from C to Aââ,¬Â. which leads him to say things like "However, if the same amount |(mgh1 ââ,¬â€œ (Ma ââ,¬â€œ Mb))| of energy is imparted to the ball and the ball doesn't settle with B as an apex but, as experiment shows, instead reaches another apex C then, obviously, when the ball returns back at A the ball loses amount of energy different from the amount |(mgh1 ââ,¬â€œ (Ma ââ,¬â€œ Mb))| imparted to it."
For him to leave out the gain of magnetic potential (which is also loss of kinetic energy) along path C-A is certainly not conventional physics and, in my recent memory, it has not been explained beyond the bald assertion that it is so. Nor has it been proven by his experiment, which can be simply explained by conventional physics which predicts the ball will go from B to C to A by itself if Mb > mgh2 and Mb + mgh1 >= Ma. To show that the ball has excess energy at A would require a corroborating measurement of that energy, which has not been done. The claim is extraordinary, the proof is sub-ordinary.
@modervador,
?To show that the ball has excess energy at A would require a corroborating measurement of that energy, which has not been done.?
On the contrary, corroborative measurement has been done showing that the ball at C has not just energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc - Ma), as you incorrectly understand, but the whole amount of energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) ready to be transformed (and actually transformed) into other kinds of energies such as, say, Ma, when the ball returns at A. The energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) equivalent to (mgh1 + Mb) the ball has at C exceeds the energy (mgh1 (Ma ? Mb)) which has been imparted to the ball. CoE does not allow such excess of energy. CoE requires that only the imparted amount of energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) should be the available energy to be transformed into other energies such as, say, Ma, when the ball returns at A.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 17, 2008, 10:11:33 PM
In the observed case, however, the ball at B loses Mb (which transforms equivalently into other forms of energy such as mgh1 and Kc) in addition to mgh1 which it will inevitably lose when back at A. Thus, the ball at B in the discussed case loses, that is, converts into other kinds of energies, the energy (mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) and not (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc - Ma) as you incorrectly state. Observed inequality Ein =/= Eout, that is (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) =/= (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) is a clear violation of CoE.
The ball does indeed lose Mb along path B-C, but I assume you meant to say that this "transforms equivalently into other forms of energy such as Kc and mgh2 (not mgh1)".
But I never said that (mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc - Ma). I said that Kc = Mb - mgh2. Thus when you write "(mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc)" I have to agree because
(mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) = mgh1 + mgh2 + (Mb - mgh2) = mgh1 + Mb.
There are other interesting points in your post that deserve response, but I have work matters to which I must attend.
?I repeat, if CoE is to be obeyed and Ein = Eout, the ball at B must lose exactly the amount (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)), that is, exactly the amount of energy imparted to it from a known source along A-B.
In the observed case, however, the ball at B loses Mb (which transforms equivalently into other forms of energy such as mgh1 and Kc) in addition to mgh1 which it will inevitably lose when back at A. Thus, the ball at B in the discussed case loses, that is, converts into other kinds of energies, the energy (mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) and not (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc - Ma) as you incorrectly state. Observed inequality Ein =/= Eout, that is (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) =/= (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) is a clear violation of CoE.?
Oh, I think I understand it now...
Kc=Mb-mgh2 (where Mb>0 and Mc=0). Thus, it results that Ec (total energy in C, kinetic and potential) is Ec=Mb-mgh2, which is not equal to the imparted energy mgh1+Mb-Ma, hence CoE violation?
That?s correct in the first part but who says the two energies have to be equal, in the first place?!!!
It?s easy to see that Ec>mgh1+Mb-Ma. Does it mean CoE violation?
Yes and no.
Yes in the same manner as a rock falling onto your feet. Indeed, the rock falling once may seem energy out of nothing. Your leg gets broken.
No, because is you want to have a potentially ever leg-breaking stone, you still need to bring the stone at the initial height. So, instead of breaking your own leg once (which is not wise, by the way ;) ), better put a spring down-there and the stone will jump back to the same height as it was at the beginning. But then you have no free energy anymore and no CoE violation.
In short, C is a potential fountain which was not there in the absence of SMOT. Kc>mgh1+Mb-Ma but if you extract that Kc energy, the ball will never leave SMOT anymore.
?The energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) equivalent to (mgh1 + Mb) the ball has at C exceeds the energy (mgh1 (Ma ? Mb)) which has been imparted to the ball. CoE does not allow such excess of energy.?
I have to disagree with this also. If I have to raise a weight from the second to the third floor, at any time I may choose to secure the weight with an elastic wire and let it drop. Any external observer will see the weight falling to the ground floor (or bellow; you name how deep it falls) and being brought back by the elastic force. Like in SMOT, energy computation will show that the weight-elastic wire system is having at times more energy that I put in it in the first place. But there is no CoE violation. (And that surplus energy can be extracted once at the cost of the weight remaining bellow the first floor, where I started?)
I guess this story is now daylight clear to me and very close to its end.
But I?m ready to listen if there is more.
Many thanks,
Tinu
@modervador,
Of course, you should agree. It is the entire amount of energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) the ball has at C that is transformed into other kinds of energy such as, say, Ma, when the ball returns at A closing the loop. Not just (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc - Ma), as you used to misunderstand, but the entire amount (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc).
The fact that the ball has energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) to transfer (and it is actually transferred) into other kinds of energies such as, say, Ma, when it returns where it started, that is at A, which is greater than the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) imparted to it is in violation of CoE. According to CoE the ball can never have greater amount of energy available to be transformed into other kinds of energy than the amount of energy imparted to it. In the discussed case the ball at C has greater amount of energy to be transformed into other kinds of energy that the initial amount of energy imparted to it. Therefore, the case under discussion here violates CoE.
@tinu,
Read carefully the explanations. You haven't understood it correctly.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 18, 2008, 12:39:59 PM
@tinu,
Read carefully the explanations. You haven't understood it correctly.
Ein=mgh1+Mb-Ma.
But please also write the explicit formula of Eout.
Thanks,
Tinu
Eout (CoE not violated) = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb))
Eout(CoE violated) = (mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc)
Quote from: Omnibus on January 18, 2008, 11:36:12 AM
@modervador,
?To show that the ball has excess energy at A would require a corroborating measurement of that energy, which has not been done.?
On the contrary, corroborative measurement has been done showing that the ball at C has not just energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc - Ma), as you incorrectly understand, but the whole amount of energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) ready to be transformed (and actually transformed) into other kinds of energies such as, say, Ma, when the ball returns at A.
The energy at C was never an issue. Your experiment did not measure the available energy at A. Therefore any claim that harvestable energy at A exceeds mgh1 + Mb - Ma has yet to be corroborated by measurement.
The total energy at C is indeed greater than the initial work done to move the ball from A to B, i.e. (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) = (mgh1 + Mb) > (mgh1 + Mb - Ma). However, if you extract all that energy, you cannot get back to point B without putting it all back, i.e. the hand will have to expend the full mgh1 + Mb. For the hand to only exert (mgh1 + Mb - Ma) to place the ball at B, the ball has to start at A (or at some point of equipotential). But you can't get to A from C without the ball gaining magnetic potential Ma at the expense of some other energy pool.
We do agree that "the ball at C has. . .the whole amount of energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) ready to be transformed (and actually transformed) into other kinds of energies such as, say, Ma, when the ball returns at A." The ball has Ma when it ends up at rest at A, which is just as much as it had when it started there.
Sorry but Kc can not be part of Eout for repeated/cyclical SMOT operation.
A big part of Kc goes back in Ma.
I wrote on the above when you said I did not understood and I write here again shortly: if you take (even part of) Kc out of the system, the ball will get stuck in C and it will not reach Ma. I agree Ec=mgh1+mgh2+Kc but this is not Eout.
Comments?
Tinu
Quote from: Omnibus on January 18, 2008, 12:34:43 PM
@modervador,
Of course, you should agree. It is the entire amount of energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) the ball has at C that is transformed into other kinds of energy such as, say, Ma, when the ball returns at A closing the loop. Not just (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc - Ma), as you used to misunderstand, but the entire amount (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc).
If I ever seriously disputed that the energy at C is (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc), then I did so in error. However, if you are suggesting that the energy available at A is the same as available at C when the ball makes the B-C-A transition, then you do so either in error or without explanation and without proof.
QuoteAccording to CoE the ball can never have greater amount of energy available to be transformed into other kinds of energy than the amount of energy imparted to it. In the discussed case the ball at C has greater amount of energy to be transformed into other kinds of energy that the initial amount of energy imparted to it. Therefore, the case under discussion here violates CoE.
The problem with that logic is that the energy Ma was imparted to the ball when it was first positioned at point A. It is built into the system. So the energy of the ball resting at A, Ea = Ma. Therefore the total energy at C is no different from the energy of the ball at A plus the energy to go from A to B, namely Ec = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) = (Ea + mgh1 + Mb - Ma) = (mgh1 + Mb). So CoE seems quite safe.
I just put this picture here - just to ease the understanding a bit for new visitors..
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D3417.0%3Battach%3D16223%3Bimage&hash=c4fbbd3ba72efd3ff7684f43d8f19bc75dd55f0c)
Quote from: modervador on January 18, 2008, 04:01:48 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 18, 2008, 11:36:12 AM
@modervador,
?To show that the ball has excess energy at A would require a corroborating measurement of that energy, which has not been done.?
On the contrary, corroborative measurement has been done showing that the ball at C has not just energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc - Ma), as you incorrectly understand, but the whole amount of energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) ready to be transformed (and actually transformed) into other kinds of energies such as, say, Ma, when the ball returns at A.
The energy at C was never an issue. Your experiment did not measure the available energy at A. Therefore any claim that harvestable energy at A exceeds mgh1 + Mb - Ma has yet to be corroborated by measurement.
The total energy at C is indeed greater than the initial work done to move the ball from A to B, i.e. (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) = (mgh1 + Mb) > (mgh1 + Mb - Ma). However, if you extract all that energy, you cannot get back to point B without putting it all back, i.e. the hand will have to expend the full mgh1 + Mb. For the hand to only exert (mgh1 + Mb - Ma) to place the ball at B, the ball has to start at A (or at some point of equipotential). But you can't get to A from C without the ball gaining magnetic potential Ma at the expense of some other energy pool.
We do agree that "the ball at C has. . .the whole amount of energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) ready to be transformed (and actually transformed) into other kinds of energies such as, say, Ma, when the ball returns at A." The ball has Ma when it ends up at rest at A, which is just as much as it had when it started there.
On the contrary, the energy at C has always been an issue. Like I said several times already, the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 Kc) the ball has available at C to be transformed in other energies is greater than the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted to the ball. This is in violation of CoE.
The available energy at A at the start of the experiment is well known, it?s Ma.
Upon the return of the ball at A from C the energy that was transformed into other energies is (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) which is greater than the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted to the ball. This I?ve said many, many times. It?s a fact. You choose to ignore this fact but be assured, I will repeat it as many times as necessary until you learn to honor it.
Don?t divert the conversation to what you can extract and what you cannot extract. When physics discusses obeying of CoE it doesn?t divert the discussion into what can be extracted and what not. The ball when raised from the floor to be placed on the table obeys CoE when let go back on the floor because the imparted and the lost energies are exactly the same. Not so in this case.
It is not true that if I have raised the ball to h1, somewhere below the table, but then the ball somehow managed, without my involvement, to fall on the floor from the table at height (h1 + h2) from the floor CoE wouldn?t be violated. It would.
And, yes, the ball when back at A has energy Ma, in addition to other energies, but that energy is regained spontaneously, in violation of CoE. Had CoE not been violated the ball would have energy Ma when back at A only by losing just the amount (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)). In our case, the ball loses (mgh1 ? Mb) which is a greater amount of energy. That energy, that is, the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) the ball has at C available to be converted in other energies such as, say, Ma is greater than the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted to the ball. This discrepancy in energies isn?t allowed by CoE and because it is a real, experimental discrepancy CoE is violated.
@modervador,
The energy put in to built the machine (including the energy Ma for the initial state) is never taken into account in the energy balance.
@tinu,
Focus on the fact that at C the ball has energy of the amount (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) which is available to be transferred (and is actually transferred when the ball it at A) into other kinds of energy. It is this energy which the ball has at C which the CoE forbids the ball to have available because all the energy that was imparted to it was only the amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)).
What the exact energies are which the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) turns into when back at A, including energy Ma, is a detail and isn't part of the argument.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 18, 2008, 04:40:11 PM
The energy put in to built the machine (including the energy Ma for the initial state) is never taken into account in the energy balance.
The initial energy (Ma) is certainly taken into account when talking about the energy input to move the ball from A to B, (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)). That's the (Ma) term in (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)).
It most certainly must be taken into account when it is claimed that because (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) > (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)), CoE is violated, as you say in this passage:
"On the contrary, the energy at C has always been an issue. Like I said several times already, the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 Kc) the ball has available at C to be transformed in other energies is greater than the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted to the ball. This is in violation of CoE."
The matter of the initial state and how to return to it is very much relevant. In the initial state (ball resting at A), the ball has Ma of magnetic potential, indisputably. The system was made that way. That it takes less than (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) to move the ball from A to B is a red herring. The system never has more energy than what it started with (Ma) plus what was put in by the hand (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)), consistent with CoE.
If you have an actual measurement that shows otherwise, then please present it.
@omnibus,
I already focused and I?m telling that the error is not with me/with us. You compare externally imparted energy with total energy but they are two independent variables. There is no physical connection between them.
Here is the rationale: What would be the relation between Mc and Mb? There is none. Mc=0 by convention but one can make Mb as large as he/she wants by using stronger and stronger magnets. Mb may be huge yet Ma-Mb may be kept constant. Imparted energy is a function of (Mb-Ma) only but total energy is a function of |Mb| (or |Ma|). (To be exact, imparted energy is (mgh1+Mb-Ma) and total energy the system has is mgh1+Mb).
Therefore I hope it results very clear: imparted energy is one and total energy is something else. (In particular, imparted energy can be kept finite and arbitrary small while total energy can be made to go toward infinite into an appropriate setup). Consequently, any comparison made between imparted and total energy does not have any physical significance. Furthermore, available energy according to CoE is not limited to the imparted energy but, of course, to the total energy.
You are right in every aspect but the last sentence of the following quote:
?Like I said several times already, the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 +Kc) the ball has available at C to be transformed in other energies is greater than the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted to the ball. This is in violation of CoE.?
(mgh1 + mgh2 +Kc) is total energy and (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) is imparted energy?
I strongly disagree based on the same grounds with the following:
?It is this energy which the ball has at C which the CoE forbids the ball to have available because all the energy that was imparted to it was only the amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)).?
Tinu
QuoteThe initial energy (Ma) is certainly taken into account when talking about the energy input to move the ball from A to B, (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)). That's the (Ma) term in (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)).
The initial energy Ma is taken into account when talking about the energy input because it?s there, the way the energy to secure the screws of the machine has been spent. What is discussed is what happens after that. That?s what the balance is all about especially when this initial Ma is restored after every cycle. As seen from your citation as well, the energy at A is only taken into account when changing the initial state of the ball. The energy Ma is never taken into account separately as an initially input energy, as you erroneously suggested to be done in your previous post.
QuoteIt most certainly must be taken into account when it is claimed that because (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) > (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)), CoE is violated, as you say in this passage:
"On the contrary, the energy at C has always been an issue. Like I said several times already, the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 Kc) the ball has available at C to be transformed in other energies is greater than the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted to the ball. This is in violation of CoE."
No, Ma in the sense you suggest, that is, (mgh1 + mgh1 + Kc ?Ma) most certainly must not be taken into account. As I already said many, many times, the only energy which must be taken into account when considering the amount of energy the ball has at C available to be transferred in other energies is (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc).
QuoteThe matter of the initial state and how to return to it is very much relevant. In the initial state (ball resting at A), the ball has Ma of magnetic potential, indisputably. The system was made that way. That it takes less than (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) to move the ball from A to B is a red herring. The system never has more energy than what it started with (Ma) plus what was put in by the hand (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)), consistent with CoE. If you have an actual measurement that shows otherwise, then please present it.
Not correct. In returning at A where the ball has undisputedly energy Ma the ball must lose only energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) if CoE is to be obeyed. When CoE isn?t obeyed, as in out case, the ball obviously has available more than that mentioned (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) (it has (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc)) to convert into other energies, including Ma which the ball has at A where it inevitably returns. CoE forbids the ball to have greater amount available for conversion in other energies such as, say, Ma, than the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) which has been imparted to it. As you see, I will persistently repeat the truth about this situation no matter how inconvenient it appears to you and no matter how you would try to convolute the argument. Experiment proving the above is available.
@tinu,
What you're saying is incorrect. Please read carefully my explanation which I need not repeat and understand clearly what is lost, what is imparted and what is total energy. Mb is also imparted energy but out of no source. In order to have Mb at B someone must have imparted that energy by pulling the ball from C to B. There's no such entity (no such "someone") and the energy Mb is available at B out of nothing. That's the gist of the whole point which you have to understand well before commenting.
@omnibus,
I may have several questions during the next posts if you?ll be gentle to provide your answer:
What is total energy in C? Please write it down.
Thanks,
Tinu
Quote from: Omnibus on January 18, 2008, 06:03:11 PMNo, Ma in the sense you suggest, that is, (mgh1 + mgh1 + Kc ?Ma) most certainly must not be taken into account. As I already said many, many times, the only energy which must be taken into account when considering the amount of energy the ball has at C available to be transferred in other energies is (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc).
As I've said before, I don't recall ever suggesting that the total energy at point C was anything other than (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc). I said that the kinetic energy at C was Mb - mgh2. So once again we quite agree that the total energy at point C = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) = mgh1 + mgh2 + (Mb - mgh2) = (mgh1 + Mb).
The latter, (mgh1 + Mb), is the total energy at point B, which happens to be greater than the energy put in by the hand, (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) to move the ball from A to B. This is not a problem, for point A already had an initial energy (Ma). Thus total energy at B equals initial energy at A plus energy from the hand:
Eb = Ea(initial) + Ehand = Ma + mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) = (mgh1 + Mb).
QuoteIn returning at A where the ball has undisputedly energy Ma the ball must lose only energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) if CoE is to be obeyed. When CoE isn?t obeyed, as in out case, the ball obviously has available more than that mentioned (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) (it has (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc)) to convert into other energies, including Ma which the ball has at A where it inevitably returns. CoE forbids the ball to have greater amount available for conversion in other energies such as, say, Ma, than the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) which has been imparted to it. As you see, I will persistently repeat the truth about this situation no matter how inconvenient it appears to you and no matter how you would try to convolute the argument. Experiment proving the above is available.
We agree that when the ball returns to A, it once again has Ma of magnetic potential, as well as other energy which optimally is in the form of kinetic energy. The total of this is therefore Ea(final) = Ma + Ka. This amount Ea(final) is available to convert into other energies, but I note that while the ball remains at A, only the Ka component is available (it must move from A to access the Ma part).
We agree that this Ea(final) comes from the full (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) available at point C which converts into other energies, including Ma which the ball has at A where it inevitably returns.
Ea(final) = Ma + Ka = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc)
Ka = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) - Ma
Recall from above and
earlier posts (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3417.msg71306.html#msg71306), (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) = (mgh1 + Mb) thus
Ka = (mgh1 + Mb) ? Ma = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) = Ehand
Ea(final) = Ma + Ka = Ea(initial) + Ehand.
Is this what you?ve been leading us to all along?
Correct. Despite the fact that in both cases that follow the hand lifts the ball from A to B we have:
1) CoE violated:
Ea(final) = (mgh1 + mgh1 + Kc) = (Ma + other energies)
This is observed in the discussed case.
2) CoE obeyed:
Ea(final) = (mgh1 + Mb) ? (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) = Ma
This is not observed in the discussed case.
@tinu,
You'll find the answer to your question in @modervador's post.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 19, 2008, 12:03:37 PM
Correct. Despite the fact that in both cases that follow the hand lifts the ball from A to B we have:
1) Ea(final) = (mgh1 + mgh1 + Kc) = (Ma + other energies)
This is observed in the discussed case.
OK, we have agreement! This is quite a step for me.
More later.
Quote from: modervador on January 19, 2008, 01:02:33 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 19, 2008, 12:03:37 PM
Correct. Despite the fact that in both cases that follow the hand lifts the ball from A to B we have:
1) Ea(final) = (mgh1 + mgh1 + Kc) = (Ma + other energies)
This is observed in the discussed case.
OK, we have agreement! This is quite a step for me.
More later.
This quotation is incomplete. My post should be quoted in full:
QuoteCorrect. Despite the fact that in both cases that follow the hand lifts the ball from A to B we have:
1) CoE violated:
Ea(final) = (mgh1 + mgh1 + Kc) = (Ma + other energies)
This is observed in the discussed case.
2) CoE obeyed:
Ea(final) = (mgh1 + Mb) ? (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) = Ma
This is not observed in the discussed case.
There should be agreement with the second part of my post as well:
Quote from: Omnibus on January 18, 2008, 04:45:35 PM
@tinu,
Focus on the fact that at C the ball has energy of the amount (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) which is available to be transferred (and is actually transferred when the ball it at A) into other kinds of energy. It is this energy which the ball has at C which the CoE forbids the ball to have available because all the energy that was imparted to it was only the amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)).
What the exact energies are which the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) turns into when back at A, including energy Ma, is a detail and isn't part of the argument.
What is the practical difference between mgh1 and mgh2? Why are you excluding mgh2 when talking about the energy in point C?
I ask because I'm a little confused. Shouldn't the energy imparted to the ball also include mgh2 and be something like this: Mc = [mgh2 - mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)] , as the ball in fact is ending up in point C?
Or is it so that mgh2 is the excess energy in the path A, B, C? If so, why?
Vidar
Quote from: Omnibus on January 19, 2008, 01:12:01 PM
This quotation is incomplete. My post should be quoted in full:
. . .
There should be agreement with the second part of my post as well:
I agree with the substance of both parts:
Ea(final) = (mgh1 + mgh1 + Kc) = (Ma + other energies) is observed in the discussed case.
Ea(final) = (mgh1 + Mb) ? (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) = Ma is not observed in the discussed case.
I wished to delay consideration of CoE issues (more later). I was trying to be brief and didn't think that trimming part of the quote, which was there further up the page, altered the meaning or impact of the quote. Sorry for the confusion.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 19, 2008, 12:03:37 PM
Correct. Despite the fact that in both cases that follow the hand lifts the ball from A to B we have:
1) CoE violated:
Ea(final) = (mgh1 + mgh1 + Kc) = (Ma + other energies)
This is observed in the discussed case.
2) CoE obeyed:
Ea(final) = (mgh1 + Mb) ? (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) = Ma
This is not observed in the discussed case.
I disagree.
It is precisely THE OTHER WAY:
1) CoE OBEYED:
Ea(final) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) = (Ma + other energies)
Where ?other energies?=Ehand.
This is observed in the discussed case.
2) CoE VIOLATED:
Ea(final) = (mgh1 + Mb) ? (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) = Ma
This is not observed in the discussed case.
Of course it is not observed because, despite all the loses, Ehand does not 'vanish in aether' and part of it manifests as Ka, according to CoE obeyed above.
Tinu
@tinu,
You want to be funny, don't you? You forget, however, that physics isn't a comedy show.
@omnibus,
No, I'm not joking; this time I am very serious.
And the case above - CoE obeyed (point 1) plus all the posts from former dialogue show quite a good picture of SMOT. Equations conform to physical reality.
Why do you ask if I?m joking? Is it something you disagree?
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on January 20, 2008, 01:57:42 PM
@omnibus,
No, I'm not joking; this time I am very serious.
And the case above - CoE obeyed (point 1) plus all the posts from former dialogue show quite a good picture of SMOT. Equations conform to physical reality.
Why do you ask if I?m joking? Is it something you disagree?
Tinu
Don't even bother continuing this. This is a serious discussion, not a joke you're trying to turn it into.
@omnibus,
Oh, but it was not that serious after all?
It took a week to find out that Ein is correctly defined but Eout is not. I don?t see how CoE can be properly discussed if only half of its equation (CoE: Eout=Ein) is correctly handled.
So far everybody agreed that Ein=mgh1+Mb-Ma
But there is a slight unsolved issue since you mistakenly said that
?Eout(CoE violated) = (mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc)?. That is Etotal, not Eout.
Hopefully, during the next week we can agree upon Eout and Etotal and continue with a serious discussion. Until then, have a nice week everyone.
Tinu
@tinu,
I told you to take some time to convince yourself as to what's input, total or output energy. You didn't do that and this is the reason for your confusion.
@omnibus,
To me is very clear:
Ein=mgh1+Mb-Ma
EtotalB=EtotalC=mgh1+Mb=mgh1+mgh2+Kc
As for EtotalA, there are two cases:
1. The ball arrives in A with kinetic energy (ideal case: frictionless/free loss SMOT). EtotalA1=EtotalB=EtotalC=mgh1+Mb=mgh1+mhg2+Kc=Ma+?other energies?, where ?other energies?=Ehand=Ein=mgh1+Mb-Ma.
2. After kinetic energy is all transformed into heat and the ball is in rest in A, EtotalA2=Ma.
Now, from 1 above one can easily see that ?other energies?=mgh1+Mb-Ma=Ehand (or Ein, if you want), so this is not a guess but plain algebra.
But ?Other energies?=EtotalA1-EtotalA2=Eout. This is not negotiable either: ?other energies? is all SMOT can give as output.
Hence, as it is seen: Eout=Ein=Ehand.
Daylight simple. What you put in is what you get out. (Or, GIGO principle maybe? ;) )
Ein=Eout.
CoE obeyed.
QED
And your version would be ??
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on January 20, 2008, 04:57:23 PM
@omnibus,
To me is very clear:
Ein=mgh1+Mb-Ma
EtotalB=EtotalC=mgh1+Mb=mgh1+mgh2+Kc
As for EtotalA, there are two cases:
1. The ball arrives in A with kinetic energy (ideal case: frictionless/free loss SMOT). EtotalA1=EtotalB=EtotalC=mgh1+Mb=mgh1+mhg2+Kc=Ma+?other energies?, where ?other energies?=Ehand=Ein=mgh1+Mb-Ma.
2. After kinetic energy is all transformed into heat and the ball is in rest in A, EtotalA2=Ma.
Now, from 1 above one can easily see that ?other energies?=mgh1+Mb-Ma=Ehand (or Ein, if you want), so this is not a guess but plain algebra.
But ?Other energies?=EtotalA1-EtotalA2=Eout. This is not negotiable either: ?other energies? is all SMOT can give as output.
Hence, as it is seen: Eout=Ein=Ehand.
Daylight simple. What you put in is what you get out. (Or, GIGO principle maybe? ;) )
Ein=Eout.
CoE obeyed.
QED
And your version would be ??
Tinu
Please try to understand this on your own. Don't clutter the thread with your confusion.
No, no!
This time is half a page, clear proof CoE obeyed, easily verifiable by almost everyone and in agreement with previous posts.
Therefore, please reply to the subject if you have scientific arguments.
If not, of course you can go back into the cluttering corner but I won?t buy it anymore.
Cheers,
Tinu
No, I can't waste time to sort out your confusion. Like I said, you have to sort it out on your own.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 20, 2008, 05:16:33 PM
No, I can't waste time to sort out your confusion. Like I said, you have to sort it out on your own.
Nice excuse.
Ok, then. Let?s wait for other?s opinion on the above CoE-obeyed proof and remembering that a proof remains true until refuted. And let?s hope that one day in the future we might see a similar page ending with CoE>1, QED.
Tinu out
What remains true is that CoE is violated. As for your confusion, you have to deal with it not anybody else.
Hi All !
Can someone recommend relativly cheap source of SmCo or NdFeB magnets
...ktmagnets (china) is not responding... although I had good expirience regarding price, quality
and fast shipment.
I'm in need of block shaped magnets AxBxC=100x25x5 (all mm). 10 pieces
magnetised through C (thickness)
plastic (epoxy) or Zn or Ni coated. grade SmCo 24 or N27 to N40.
any recommendations
thanks
Quote from: wizkycho2 on January 21, 2008, 06:22:13 AM
Hi All !
Can someone recommend relativly cheap source of SmCo or NdFeB magnets
...ktmagnets (china) is not responding... although I had good expirience regarding price, quality
and fast shipment.
I'm in need of block shaped magnets AxBxC=100x25x5 (all mm). 10 pieces
magnetised through C (thickness)
plastic (epoxy) or Zn or Ni coated. grade SmCo 24 or N27 to N40.
any recommendations
thanks
Hi,
Here are two links, not sure they are cheaper than the Chinese (maybe the second one approach them):
from USA: http://www.amazingmagnets.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=25595
from Germany: http://www.monstermagnete.de/catalog/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=Q150 (they focus on SMOT magnets too and postage 5EU only!!!)
Last year I ordered some arc magnets from http://www.cndailymag.com/permanent-magnets.htm , managing director Charles Yao (his e-mail is charles@cndailymag.com ) I received good price offer from him. Try him!
rgds, Gyula
Quote from: Omnibus on January 20, 2008, 05:27:07 PM
What remains true is that CoE is violated. As for your confusion, you have to deal with it not anybody else.
Yes, the truth is that CoE, according to the math, is violated. However, the math posted this far is incomplete. The whole picture is not yet presented, and threfor CoE seems to be violated. Complete the math, and you'll soon understand this.
PS! NO, I'm not cluttering up this thread with nonsense.
Vidar
A short explanation to my previous post:
If the ball is moving from B to C, the ball vill be able to go back to A from C, on one condition: If mgh2 is less than the diameter of the ball. In order to violate CoE, mgh2 must be equal or greater than the diameter of the ball, else not the complete mass of the ball is travelling mgh2. It is possible to lift the ball more this high, but then the ball will need energy from the hand to release it from point C as the magnetic force, in order to lift the ball higher than its diameter, will keep the ball in point C.
So no matter how you put it, CoE is obeyed.
Vidar
@Low-Q,
Your incoherent rantings should stop. This thread isn't a trash bin for intellectual garbage.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 21, 2008, 12:51:18 PM
@Low-Q,
Your incoherent rantings should stop. This thread isn't a trash bin for intellectual garbage.
Getting busted is never a pleasent experience. I understand your concerns, and I hope you'll get well.
Vidar
@Low-Q,
Cut it out.
@Omnibus
The diameter is an expression of its size and mass. As it is a sphere, the diameter is therefor easy to use as an example when you want to calculate the energy required to lift the ball at hight mgh2.
Please try to see this. I'm not joking - really!!
Vidar
Continuously posting crap won't help you figure out what's what. Think more and try to learn some things first.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 21, 2008, 01:34:13 PM
Continuously posting crap won't help you figure out what's what. Think more and try to learn some things first.
Sure I can write down an equation to proove my claim, but you wouldn't be interested in that i guess.
All mass have a certain extent, where each an every bit of that volume is influed differently and independently on other objects and forces. However the ball is solid, and everything you do on the surface will influence on the whole ball, but that wouldn't change the issue. You cannot simply ignore an objects extent in an equation for issues like the SMOT - just to take an example. Your equation will probaly be correct for an infinite small object but with same weight and magnetic properties as the ball, and without the extent surface that will change this objects path.
At least you should look at this, before you write derogatory assertions about anyone.
Vidar.
@Low-Q,
What you're writing is nonsense. When somethings is nonsense it must be identified as such and that isn't derogatory.
Quote from: Low-Q on January 21, 2008, 10:02:42 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 20, 2008, 05:27:07 PM
What remains true is that CoE is violated. As for your confusion, you have to deal with it not anybody else.
Yes, the truth is that CoE, according to the math, is violated. ...
Vidar
@ Vidar,
What math?! Point it to me if you?re aware of it.
Imho such math was never posted; nevertheless, it doesn?t matter because it does not exist: CoE is obeyed.
Tinu
Quote from: Low-Q on January 21, 2008, 12:18:01 PM
If the ball is moving from B to C, the ball vill be able to go back to A from C, on one condition: If mgh2 is less than the diameter of the ball.
I don't think this is true. The conditions for the ball to go from B to C to A without help are Mb > mgh2 and Mb + mgh1 >= Ma. I don't see any restriction on ball diameter relative to h2.
I presume you meant to compare the diameter with h2 (distance) not with mgh2 (energy).
Quote from: Low-Q on January 21, 2008, 10:02:42 AM
However, the math posted this far is incomplete.
I've taken the liberty of posting a summary of the maths so far:
Ea(initial) = Ma
Ein = Ehand = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))
Eb = Ea(initial) + Ehand = Ma + (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) = Mb + mgh1
Ec = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) = Mb + mgh1 = Ea(initial) + Ehand
Kc = Mb ? mgh2
Ea(final) = Ma + Ka = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc)
Ka = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) ? Ma = (Mb + mgh1) ? Ma = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) = Ehand
Ea(final) = Ma + Ka = Ea(initial) + Ehand.
Eout = Ea(final) ? Ea(initial) = [Ea(initial) + Ehand] ? Ea(initial) = Ehand
Egain = Eout ? Ein = Ehand ? Ehand
I think Stefan should close this thread. As seen, it has been categorically proven that SMOT violates CoE and no more exercise in confusion is necessary.
@modervador,
Now that you understand that I was right and that SMOT violates CoE you should go back to the Seorn forum where we know each other from, should open a thread there and should try to clarify their confusion regarding this. That's the honorable thing to do.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 21, 2008, 07:36:38 PM
@modervador,
Now that you understand that I was right and that SMOT violates CoE you should go back to the Seorn forum where we know each other from, should open a thread there and should try to clarify their confusion regarding this. That's the honorable thing to do.
I think that's a useful approach. Before I do that, I need to confirm a few details so that I can write a treatise that is convincing enough out of the gate to be protected from a barrage of questions arising from misinterpretation or ignorance.
Do you agree with the summary maths I recently posted?
You agreed with my equations and you should go with what you already agreed with.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 21, 2008, 01:34:13 PM
Continuously posting crap won't help you figure out what's what.
@Omnibus - You should take note of this yourself.
Quote from: hoptoad on January 21, 2008, 11:52:06 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 21, 2008, 01:34:13 PM
Continuously posting crap won't help you figure out what's what.
@Omnibus - You should take note of this yourself.
Stop filling this thread with crap.
I again suggest that Stefan closes this thread because there's nothing more to be discussed on this matter. Further exchange of confused posts is useless and only clutters the forum.
Next step is to see @modervador open a thread in the Steorn forum and explain to several curious posters there why SMOT violates CoE, something he already understands well.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 12:04:32 AM
Stop filling this thread with crap.
@ Omnibus - try practicing what you preach!
@hoptoad,
I will not stop asking you to cut out filling the thread with gibberish, be sure. Don't waste your time.
Quote from: modervador on January 21, 2008, 05:05:15 PM
Quote from: Low-Q on January 21, 2008, 12:18:01 PM
If the ball is moving from B to C, the ball vill be able to go back to A from C, on one condition: If mgh2 is less than the diameter of the ball.
I don't think this is true. The conditions for the ball to go from B to C to A without help are Mb > mgh2 and Mb + mgh1 >= Ma. I don't see any restriction on ball diameter relative to h2.
I presume you meant to compare the diameter with h2 (distance) not with mgh2 (energy).
Hi,
Yes, you're right. I meant if the ball wasn't lifted more then its diameter (its extent), then the energy difference to the ball will not be enough to keep the ball in point C, so it will go further to point A.
However, if the ball is lifted more than its diameter (its extent), the magnetic field must be stronger, and it will be too strong to release the ball.
These things can easily be displayed by experiments as well.
I meant also that Omnibus could be right if the ball in the last case would manage to release from point C anyway (Which is not gonna happen), but in the first case, CoE is obeyed anyway.
Sorry for the confusions, Omnibus and modevador.
Vidar
I think the jury is still out on this question, and will continue to be unless someone, especially someone who claims a certainty, defines this o.u. outcome. I have seen good cases for both sides. What I have not seen is respect for opposing views from the "SMOT is OU" side. Mr. Omnibus, we have met (on-line) before and I do respect your intellect. All I am saying is that, if you KNOW SMOT is ou, and do not want to "explain" why to all, then maybe you should quit stating that. If you are satisfied that it is, fine...leave it at that. If you do not want to take the time to educate others than, keep it to yourself and revel in the knowledge that you are correct, and everyone else is wrong. I just hate to see conversation going in circles. This is not productive. We all want the same thing so, let's either educate each other, or move on. But, that is just my opinion.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 22, 2008, 01:42:40 AM
I think the jury is still out on this question, and will continue to be unless someone, especially someone who claims a certainty, defines this o.u. outcome. I have seen good cases for both sides. What I have not seen is respect for opposing views from the "SMOT is OU" side. Mr. Omnibus, we have met (on-line) before and I do respect your intellect. All I am saying is that, if you KNOW SMOT is ou, and do not want to "explain" why to all, then maybe you should quit stating that. If you are satisfied that it is, fine...leave it at that. If you do not want to take the time to educate others than, keep it to yourself and revel in the knowledge that you are correct, and everyone else is wrong. I just hate to see conversation going in circles. This is not productive. We all want the same thing so, let's either educate each other, or move on. But, that is just my opinion.
Bill
You're wrong. I must be blunt about that, sorry. When you're wrong the honest thing to do is to say you're wrong and not finagle. That SMOT violates CoE has been categorically proven even in this thread. The jury isn't out regarding this violation. Therefore, I ask from @modervador nothing less than to open a thread in the Steorn forum and to explain to some curious people there what he already understood, namely, that SMOT unequivocally violates CoE. I should be perfectly clear, I will not put up with any politicking, finagling, polite arrogance and all the rest of the methods he and some others (especially he) have used so far to obfuscate the truth.
As for this thread, as I've suggested already, it has to be closed because no more entanglement in confusion is at all needed to further continue and clutter this interesting and useful forum.
Regarding how we behave on this forum, I can too be quite coarse in my language, but I feel that these reactions is due to someones way in telling people they are wrong. I am a person that cannot accept "no" for an answer unless I'm explained why. However I do questioning everything, and that should be answered with a little more respect. It should also be room for the most intelectual persons here to at least concider others thaughts and "proofs" before shooting them down. I have tried to understand Omnibus claims, but I still feel something is missing.
To Omnibus and other members: I apologise for every mistakes I've done, both verbaly and from any technical point of view where I might have cluttered up the discussions. But I expect respect for my point of view even if you do not agree, or have "proofs" to the oposite.
So I whish to shake hands and start over.
Br.
Vidar
Quote from: Omnibus on January 21, 2008, 07:30:20 PM
I think Stefan should close this thread. As seen, it has been categorically proven that SMOT violates CoE and no more exercise in confusion is necessary.
Intellectual masturbation would be already a noble tag, way above of what is actually going on here.
So let?s get real.
One point is valid thought: this tread should be closed; it already proved quite nicely that there is nothing to discuss here. CoE is obeyed. SMOT CoE violation never happened except in one mind.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 21, 2008, 07:36:38 PM
@modervador,
Now that you understand that I was right and that SMOT violates CoE you should go back to the Seorn forum where we know each other from, should open a thread there and should try to clarify their confusion regarding this. That's the honorable thing to do.
Insults continue with no reason. The above is just one example, which is not only insulting but it tries to change black to white. Hello, read again: Egain=Eout-Ein=Ehand-Ehand which is zero by my math. How is by yours?
Tinu
P.S. How about changing the name of the thread? Hmmm??SMOT utopia? or just simply ?forget about SMOT??
Quote from: tinu on January 22, 2008, 04:26:38 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 21, 2008, 07:30:20 PM
I think Stefan should close this thread. As seen, it has been categorically proven that SMOT violates CoE and no more exercise in confusion is necessary.
Intellectual masturbation would be already a noble tag, way above of what is actually going on here.
So let?s get real.
One point is valid thought: this tread should be closed; it already proved quite nicely that there is nothing to discuss here. CoE is obeyed. SMOT CoE violation never happened except in one mind.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 21, 2008, 07:36:38 PM
@modervador,
Now that you understand that I was right and that SMOT violates CoE you should go back to the Seorn forum where we know each other from, should open a thread there and should try to clarify their confusion regarding this. That's the honorable thing to do.
Insults continue with no reason. The above is just one example, which is not only insulting but it tries to change black to white. Hello, read again: Egain=Eout-Ein=Ehand-Ehand which is zero by my math. How is by yours?
Tinu
P.S. How about changing the name of the thread? Hmmm??SMOT utopia? or just simply ?forget about SMOT??
Stop insulting the intelligence of the readers. Cut this out.
Quote from: Low-Q on January 22, 2008, 04:14:02 AM
Regarding how we behave on this forum, I can too be quite coarse in my language, but I feel that these reactions is due to someones way in telling people they are wrong. I am a person that cannot accept "no" for an answer unless I'm explained why. However I do questioning everything, and that should be answered with a little more respect. It should also be room for the most intelectual persons here to at least concider others thaughts and "proofs" before shooting them down. I have tried to understand Omnibus claims, but I still feel something is missing.
To Omnibus and other members: I apologise for every mistakes I've done, both verbaly and from any technical point of view where I might have cluttered up the discussions. But I expect respect for my point of view even if you do not agree, or have "proofs" to the oposite.
So I whish to shake hands and start over.
Br.
Vidar
You are confused and should deal with your confusion first before bothering people with it.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 21, 2008, 07:30:20 PM
Stop insulting the intelligence of the readers. Cut this out.
Well, you better stop with your over proven mediocrity in physics.
Quote from: tinu on January 22, 2008, 04:37:28 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 21, 2008, 07:30:20 PM
Stop insulting the intelligence of the readers. Cut this out.
Well, you better stop with your over proven mediocrity in physics.
Your impudence has no bounds. Cut this out.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 04:38:25 AM
Quote from: tinu on January 22, 2008, 04:37:28 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 21, 2008, 07:30:20 PM
Stop insulting the intelligence of the readers. Cut this out.
Well, you better stop with your over proven mediocrity in physics.
Your impudence has no bounds. Cut this out.
You push your image well beyond your actual ignorance.
Dou you really have something of relevance to say?
@Omnibus:
What to you mean by that? I want to start over, and let my own and anyones mistakes now be history. How you deal with this is your own business. I'm done.
Vidar
Quote from: tinu on January 22, 2008, 04:41:57 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 04:38:25 AM
Quote from: tinu on January 22, 2008, 04:37:28 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 21, 2008, 07:30:20 PM
Stop insulting the intelligence of the readers. Cut this out.
Well, you better stop with your over proven mediocrity in physics.
Your impudence has no bounds. Cut this out.
You push your image well beyond your actual ignorance.
Dou you really have something of relevance to say?
Everyone can go back in this thread and read your incoherent blabber. What nerve. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Quote from: Low-Q on January 22, 2008, 04:45:08 AM
@Omnibus:
What to you mean by that? I want to start over, and let my own and anyones mistakes now be history. How you deal with this is your own business. I'm done.
Vidar
I don't want to start over. To start over what? Fighting obvious nonsense. Thanks but no, thanks. You have to do something about your gaps in understanding physics instead of trying to push it on others. That's counterproductive and wasteful.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 04:47:43 AM
Everyone can go back in this thread and read your incoherent blabber. What nerve. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Egain=0 is indeed a genial proof of CoE violation.
What a nullity!
Quote from: tinu on January 22, 2008, 04:51:21 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 04:47:43 AM
Everyone can go back in this thread and read your incoherent blabber. What nerve. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Egain=0 is indeed a genial proof of CoE violation.
What a nullity!
As was seen, Egain = 0 doesn't apply to SMOT. Learn physics well before engaging in such discussions.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 04:56:13 AM
Quote from: tinu on January 22, 2008, 04:51:21 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 04:47:43 AM
Everyone can go back in this thread and read your incoherent blabber. What nerve. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Egain=0 is indeed a genial proof of CoE violation.
What a nullity!
As was seen, Egain = 0 doesn't apply to SMOT. Learn physics well before engaging in such discussions.
Was seen where? And by whom?
Don?t bother to answer but crap. It?s already obvious.
(hmmm?maybe I should have said cretinism instead of nullity in the above?)
Quote from: tinu on January 22, 2008, 05:00:11 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 04:56:13 AM
Quote from: tinu on January 22, 2008, 04:51:21 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 04:47:43 AM
Everyone can go back in this thread and read your incoherent blabber. What nerve. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Egain=0 is indeed a genial proof of CoE violation.
What a nullity!
As was seen, Egain = 0 doesn't apply to SMOT. Learn physics well before engaging in such discussions.
Was seen where? And by whom?
Don?t bother to answer but crap. It?s already obvious.
(hmmm?maybe I should have said cretinism instead of nullity in the above?)
Cretinism. Stefan and everyone else should take note who's starting it. The cretin calling others cretins.
Hey, idiot, the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) the ball has at C which transforms into (Ma + other energies) at A is greater than the input energy (mgh1 -(Ma - Mb)) which is the energy of the hand. This is in violation of CoE.
If CoE were not violated the energy of the hand (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) must have been the only energy lost when the ball is back at A.
In SMOT when back at A the ball has (Ma + other energies) which is greater than just the energy (Ma) which the ball would've had at A if CoE were obeyed.
This was proved and explained many, many times and only a cretin such as you won't get it. Physics isn't for cretins, especially cretins such as you calling other people cretins. What a shame.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 05:08:12 AM
Hey, idiot, the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) the ball has at C which transforms into (Ma + other energies) at A is greater than the input energy (mgh1 -(Ma - Mb)) which is the energy of the hand. This is in violation of CoE.
Yes it is. Who said the opposite?!
But this is not in violation of CoE in any way, you mediocre high-school physicist.
It?s just your limited understanding.
Go ask one of your pupils and come back.
Quote from: tinu on January 22, 2008, 05:17:53 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 05:08:12 AM
Hey, idiot, the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) the ball has at C which transforms into (Ma + other energies) at A is greater than the input energy (mgh1 -(Ma - Mb)) which is the energy of the hand. This is in violation of CoE.
Yes it is. Who said the opposite?!
But this is not in violation of CoE in any way, you mediocre high-school physicist.
It?s just your limited understanding.
Go ask one of your pupils and come back.
What isn't in violation of CoE? The fact that when back at A the ball has energy (Ma + other energies) and not the energy Ma it had at the onset? Now, yours is really cretinism. What high school physics? You're not fit for grade school even, you moron.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 05:23:36 AM
Quote from: tinu on January 22, 2008, 05:17:53 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 05:08:12 AM
Hey, idiot, the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) the ball has at C which transforms into (Ma + other energies) at A is greater than the input energy (mgh1 -(Ma - Mb)) which is the energy of the hand. This is in violation of CoE.
Yes it is. Who said the opposite?!
But this is not in violation of CoE in any way, you mediocre high-school physicist.
It?s just your limited understanding.
Go ask one of your pupils and come back.
What isn't in violation of CoE? The fact that when back at A the ball has energy (Ma + other energies) and not the energy Ma it had at the onset? Now, yours is really cretinism. What high school physics? You're not fit for grade school even, you moron.
Come on. You are really idiot now and it seems you don?t even realize it.
Is it your understanding of CoE that the ball in A should have the same onset energy?!
Wow, then a simple incline would violate CoE also.
You really need to work on your knowledge before talking such stupidities.
Again, for everyone to see:
The ball starts at A with energy (Ma) and ends up at A with energy (Ma + other energies) and that's claimed not to be in violation of CoE! Only someone who has entirely lost his mind can claim such a thing. Unbelievable.
This thread should be closed. Enough with this exercise in mediocrity and confusion. Violation of CoE by SMOT has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and exchanges with people who don't know what they're talking about won't contribute anything to it.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 05:30:53 AM
The ball starts at A with energy (Ma) and ends up at A with energy (Ma + other energies) and that's claimed not to be in violation of CoE! Only someone who has entirely lost his mind can claim such a thing. Unbelievable.
Of course it?s not in violation of CoE and it?s time for you to shut up instead of talking utter nonsense.
The ball starts at A with energy (Ma), it gains ?other energies?=Ehand and it ends up at A with energy (Ma+'other energies'= Ma+Ehand). Not only this is not in violation of CoE but THIS IS EXACTLY CoE, you ?genius?.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 04:50:25 AM
Quote from: Low-Q on January 22, 2008, 04:45:08 AM
@Omnibus:
What to you mean by that? I want to start over, and let my own and anyones mistakes now be history. How you deal with this is your own business. I'm done.
Vidar
I don't want to start over. To start over what? Fighting obvious nonsense. Thanks but no, thanks. You have to do something about your gaps in understanding physics instead of trying to push it on others. That's counterproductive and wasteful.
;D ;D ;D ;D I give up!! You win! LOL
Quote from: tinu on January 22, 2008, 05:30:05 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 05:23:36 AM
Quote from: tinu on January 22, 2008, 05:17:53 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 05:08:12 AM
Hey, idiot, the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) the ball has at C which transforms into (Ma + other energies) at A is greater than the input energy (mgh1 -(Ma - Mb)) which is the energy of the hand. This is in violation of CoE.
Yes it is. Who said the opposite?!
But this is not in violation of CoE in any way, you mediocre high-school physicist.
It?s just your limited understanding.
Go ask one of your pupils and come back.
What isn't in violation of CoE? The fact that when back at A the ball has energy (Ma + other energies) and not the energy Ma it had at the onset? Now, yours is really cretinism. What high school physics? You're not fit for grade school even, you moron.
Come on. You are really idiot now and it seems you don?t even realize it.
Is it your understanding of CoE that the ball in A should have the same onset energy?!
Wow, then a simple incline would violate CoE also.
You really need to work on your knowledge before talking such stupidities.
No, it won't. A simple incline won't violate CoE. Because the energy imparted to the ball to reach the apex of the incline will be exactly equal to the energy the ball loses when back to where it was lifted from.
Translated in our case: CoE will not be violated if the energy (mgh1 + (Ma - Mb)) imparted to the ball is equal to the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) the ball loses when back at A. This isn't the case in SMOT.
In SMOT, the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) imparted to the ball is not equal to the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) the ball loses when back at A. SMOT violates CoE.
You must be a complete idiot not to see this.
The answer on the above was already posted. I quote it:
Quote from: tinu on January 22, 2008, 05:38:32 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 05:30:53 AM
The ball starts at A with energy (Ma) and ends up at A with energy (Ma + other energies) and that's claimed not to be in violation of CoE! Only someone who has entirely lost his mind can claim such a thing. Unbelievable.
Of course itÃ,’s not in violation of CoE and itÃ,’s time for you to shut up instead of talking utter nonsense.
The ball starts at A with energy (Ma), it gains Ã,‘other energiesÃ,’=Ehand and it ends up at A with energy (Ma+'other energies'= Ma+Ehand). Not only this is not in violation of CoE but THIS IS EXACTLY CoE, you Ã,‘geniusÃ,’.
If you still don?t get it, unless you?re very old and mentally senile, I don?t think one can be that moron and still be alive.
So, I assume you have a hidden agenda.
Quote from: tinu on January 22, 2008, 05:38:32 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 05:30:53 AM
The ball starts at A with energy (Ma) and ends up at A with energy (Ma + other energies) and that's claimed not to be in violation of CoE! Only someone who has entirely lost his mind can claim such a thing. Unbelievable.
Of course it?s not in violation of CoE and it?s time for you to shut up instead of talking utter nonsense.
The ball starts at A with energy (Ma), it gains ?other energies?=Ehand and it ends up at A with energy (Ma+'other energies'= Ma+Ehand). Not only this is not in violation of CoE but THIS IS EXACTLY CoE, you ?genius?.
If CoE were obeyed, the ball starts at A with energy (Ma) it gains Ehand = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)), not other energies. Not other energies. Not other energies, you idiot. And ends up at A losing Ehand, ending up with energy (Ma). CoE isn't violated. This, however, isn't what's happening in SMOT.
In SMOT the ball starts at A with energy (Ma), gains energy Ehand = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)). And ends up at A losing (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies). (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) =/= (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies). SMOT violates CoE.
Cut this out, you moron, that was explained numerous times already. and people shouldn't suffer from your mediocrity by reading infinite exchanges explaining the same thing.
Quote from: tinu on January 22, 2008, 05:51:13 AM
The answer on the above was already posted. I quote it:
Quote from: tinu on January 22, 2008, 05:38:32 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 05:30:53 AM
The ball starts at A with energy (Ma) and ends up at A with energy (Ma + other energies) and that's claimed not to be in violation of CoE! Only someone who has entirely lost his mind can claim such a thing. Unbelievable.
Of course it?s not in violation of CoE and it?s time for you to shut up instead of talking utter nonsense.
The ball starts at A with energy (Ma), it gains ?other energies?=Ehand and it ends up at A with energy (Ma+'other energies'= Ma+Ehand). Not only this is not in violation of CoE but THIS IS EXACTLY CoE, you ?genius?.
If you still don?t get it, unless you?re very old and mentally senile, I don?t think one can be that moron and still be alive.
So, I assume you have a hidden agenda.
This is impudence to no end. You have no shame.
Talk on this:
Quote from: modervador on January 21, 2008, 05:44:03 PM
I've taken the liberty of posting a summary of the maths so far:
Ea(initial) = Ma
Ein = Ehand = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))
Eb = Ea(initial) + Ehand = Ma + (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) = Mb + mgh1
Ec = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) = Mb + mgh1 = Ea(initial) + Ehand
Kc = Mb ? mgh2
Ea(final) = Ma + Ka = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc)
Ka = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) ? Ma = (Mb + mgh1) ? Ma = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) = Ehand
Ea(final) = Ma + Ka = Ea(initial) + Ehand.
Eout = Ea(final) ? Ea(initial) = [Ea(initial) + Ehand] ? Ea(initial) = Ehand
Egain = Eout ? Ein = Ehand ? Ehand
Since you continue I?d say you have really, really big gaps. That?s pity; I would have considered the ?hidden agenda? more appealing.
Frankly, I wouldn?t allow you to step in front of any class, less to speak. Teaching would be completely out of question.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 01:52:33 AM
...SMOT unequivocally violates CoE...
No proof it ever did it. The only one proof would be to loop the smot.
I tried but failed. Did you succeed? We are waiting for this proof, may be we will get it, may be not. The question is still open.
Not only extraordinary claims without extraordinary experimental evidence are parasitic background noise and counterproductive for FE research, but also they discredit the field.
I presume we are here because we are rational people more interested in science even it is a bit borderline, than in religious scriptures promoted by dogmatic preachers or uneducated and blind believers with radical and doubtless wiewpoints.
If I'm right on this point, FE is not a religion so we should keep and carefully apply the scientific method by all checking and verifying again and duplicating by different teams before claiming we got the holy graal.
Quote from: tinu on January 22, 2008, 06:04:49 AM
Talk on this:
Quote from: modervador on January 21, 2008, 05:44:03 PM
I've taken the liberty of posting a summary of the maths so far:
Ea(initial) = Ma
Ein = Ehand = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))
Eb = Ea(initial) + Ehand = Ma + (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) = Mb + mgh1
Ec = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) = Mb + mgh1 = Ea(initial) + Ehand
Kc = Mb ? mgh2
Ea(final) = Ma + Ka = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc)
Ka = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) ? Ma = (Mb + mgh1) ? Ma = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) = Ehand
Ea(final) = Ma + Ka = Ea(initial) + Ehand.
Eout = Ea(final) ? Ea(initial) = [Ea(initial) + Ehand] ? Ea(initial) = Ehand
Egain = Eout ? Ein = Ehand ? Ehand
Since you continue I?d say you have really, really big gaps. That?s pity; I would have considered the ?hidden agenda? more appealing.
Frankly, I wouldn?t allow you to step in front of any class, less to speak. Teaching would be completely out of question.
Who are you to say that? A mediocrity impudently uttering nonsense. Anyone can go back and read the exchange to see the nonsense you've spewed. You have no shame. Learn physics well before allowing yourself to enter into such exchange let alone characterizing people.
Quote from: exnihiloest on January 22, 2008, 06:08:03 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 01:52:33 AM
...SMOT unequivocally violates CoE...
No proof it ever did it. The only one proof would be to loop the smot.
I tried but failed. Did you succeed? We are waiting for this proof, may be we will get it, may be not. The question is still open.
Not only extraordinary claims without extraordinary experimental evidence are parasitic background noise and counterproductive for FE research, but also they discredit the field.
I presume we are here because we are rational people more interested in science even it is a bit borderline, than in religious scriptures promoted by dogmatic preachers or uneducated and blind believers with radical and doubtless wiewpoints.
If I'm right on this point, FE is not a religion so we should keep and carefully apply the scientific method by all checking and verifying again and duplicating by different teams before claiming we got the holy graal.
Absolutely not. Science doesn't divide claims into extraordinary and non-extraordinary. Science has its own strict requirements for proving the reality of phenomena and these requirements are uniform. Your opinions about something being extraordinary or otherwise are exactly that--strictly your opinions of no interest to anybody. As far as violation of CoE goes it is absolutely no requirement for proving its validity to loop a SMOT. Putting forth such requirement indicates that you have no clue as to what a scientific argument is and what science considers as proof.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 06:13:35 AM
Who are you to say that? A mediocrity impudently uttering nonsense. Anyone can go back and read the exchange to see the nonsense you've spewed. You have no shame. Learn physics well before allowing yourself to enter into such exchange let alone characterizing people.
At least I?ve said something. When I was wrong (because it happens in life to be wrong from time to time) I?ve admitted and apologized.
But you needed 1.4k posts to BS people here about CoE violation and you keep continuing. God knows how many you disoriented elsewhere because unfortunately there are enough people to buy your nonsense.
It seems like a fixation or something else is wrong with you in connection to the subject; anyway, I am not the right person to make worries about your problems and, generally speaking, I don?t care about yourself. So, you may continue with crap and insults that are almost automatically associated to your name; there is no one else but Stefan to put you to your rightful place. The point is that I will expect nothing but crap since you were not capable of anything else up to now; therefore it is wiser for me to save the time taken for reading your ?precious thoughts?.
As for CoE violation in SMOT, it never happened. All equations were already hereby posted and enough discussion was carried out for any average person to see the truth. You were (and you actually are) not capable to show more than empty words and you can not prove (and you never proved) CoE violation, neither theoretically nor experimentally.
So please keep yelling on your fixation or do whatever you usually do in writing the next 1.4k posts. ;)
I?ll only reserve the right to point the audience toward this very thread once in a while, just for allowing fine members of this forum to be impartially informed on the point already made: Conservation of Energy (CoE) is obeyed in SMOT.
Good luck,
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on January 22, 2008, 09:23:07 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 06:13:35 AM
Who are you to say that? A mediocrity impudently uttering nonsense. Anyone can go back and read the exchange to see the nonsense you've spewed. You have no shame. Learn physics well before allowing yourself to enter into such exchange let alone characterizing people.
At least I?ve said something. When I was wrong (because it happens in life to be wrong from time to time) I?ve admitted and apologized.
But you needed 1.4k posts to BS people here about CoE violation and you keep continuing. God knows how many you disoriented elsewhere because unfortunately there are enough people to buy your nonsense.
It seems like a fixation or something else is wrong with you in connection to the subject; anyway, I am not the right person to make worries about your problems and, generally speaking, I don?t care about yourself. So, you may continue with crap and insults that are almost automatically associated to your name; there is no one else but Stefan to put you to your rightful place. The point is that I will expect nothing but crap since you were not capable of anything else up to now; therefore it is wiser for me to save the time taken for reading your ?precious thoughts?.
As for CoE violation in SMOT, it never happened. All equations were already hereby posted and enough discussion was carried out for any average person to see the truth. You were (and you actually are) not capable to show more than empty words and you can not prove (and you never proved) CoE violation, neither theoretically nor experimentally.
So please keep yelling on your fixation or do whatever you usually do in writing the next 1.4k posts. ;)
I?ll only reserve the right to point the audience toward this very thread once in a while, just for allowing fine members of this forum to be impartially informed on the point already made: Conservation of Energy (CoE) is obeyed in SMOT.
Good luck,
Tinu
You are completely wrong and you must apologize again. I didn't start calling you names. You did. And you should learn at least this from the current exchange--a scientist must be obsessed with the truth and should fight tooth and nail to have truth win. That's a must for a scientist
You are misled by @modervador who was fighting me by various underhanded ways and now sees I'm right but his dishonesty doesn't allow him to admit that.
Thus, to mislead you @modervador introduces Ehand which is in fact (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)). Now, since what the ball loses at B, namely the energy (mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) he sneakily replaces by (mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 - (Ma -Mb)) + Ma = Ehand + Ma.
And, of course he can do that because the quantity (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) = Ehand which is the input energy is a quantity contained within (mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) which is the energy lost. Elost > Ein. Do you see the inequality? This inequality is in violation of CoE.
Because if CoE was not violated Ein = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) would have been equal to Elost = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)). Elost = Ein if CoE obeyed.
You can see it this way too--it is known from the condition of the problem that at A the ball only has (Ma). And, indeed, that would be the energy the ball will have at A if CoE were obeyed because the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) which was added to (Ma) for the ball to have energy mgh1 + Mb at B will be lost in its entirety if CoE is obeyed when the ball returns from B back to A. (mgh1 + Mb) - (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) = (mgh1 + Mb) - Ehand = Ma. CoE obeyed.
Not so in SMOT.As seen above, in SMOT the energy Ein = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb) = Ehand imparted to the ball to acquire energy (mgh1 + Mb) at C is only part of the energy (mgh1 + mgh1 + other energies) the ball loses. In SMOT the energy (mgh1 + Mb) lost is greater than the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) = Ehand imparted. In SMOT the energy which the ball will have when back at A will be the equivalent to the energy (mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb) + Ma = Ehand + Ma. This is because of the "transformation" part of CoE which isn't violated in SMOT. I repeat, back at A the ball will have the equivalent of (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) which is the same as (Ma = Ehand) if we want to be facetious and split up energies in such a way to deceive people but the ball will not have energy (Ma) back at A. Energy (Ma + Ehand) at isn't the same as energy (Ma) at A. The ball would've had energy (Ma) back at A should CoE be obeyed. Now that CoE isn't obeyed the ball back at A has amaount of energy greater than (Ma), dishonestly split by @modervador for purposes of deceiving people into (Ma) +Ehand.
Hope this helps.
Now, I'm expecting from @modervador, already very clear as to why SMOT disobeys CoE to open a thread in the Steorn forum and explain to several curious souls there that violation. That's the honorable thing to do.
Cool. So where's your closed looped SMOT then? ;)
Quote
If CoE were obeyed, the ball starts at A with energy (Ma) it gains Ehand = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)), not other energies. Not other energies. Not other energies, you idiot. And ends up at A losing Ehand, ending up with energy (Ma). CoE isn't violated. This, however, isn't what's happening in SMOT.
We all agree with that. So far, so good.
Quote
In SMOT the ball starts at A with energy (Ma), gains energy Ehand = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)). And ends up at A losing (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies). (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) =/= (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies). SMOT violates CoE.
The "other energies" part, is quite confusing. By my point of view, "other energies" is confused with "detour". The ball is travelling a longer distance when not going directly from B to A - and the hand is virtually placing the ball slightly beyond the top of a hill so it will not fall back directly to point A. OFCOURSE!!
And as we all know, it does not require energy to move mass angular to gravity or magnetic fields. So the ball is just taking a detour via C before coming back at point A. And the reason why the ball is actually coming back to point A isn't because of "other energies" but because of the energy initially imparted to the ball by hand - namely slightly beyond the top of the hill.
There is no "other energies". CoE is obeyed.
PS! I already know that I'm, by your opinion, cluttering this thread with nonsense and heresy, so you don't need to comment that. WE ALL KNOW IT ALREADY.
Cheers 8)
Quote from: Koen1 on January 22, 2008, 12:10:31 PM
Cool. So where's your closed looped SMOT then? ;)
The A-B-C-A loop we're discussing is a closed loop.
Quote from: Low-Q on January 22, 2008, 12:25:35 PM
Quote
If CoE were obeyed, the ball starts at A with energy (Ma) it gains Ehand = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)), not other energies. Not other energies. Not other energies, you idiot. And ends up at A losing Ehand, ending up with energy (Ma). CoE isn't violated. This, however, isn't what's happening in SMOT.
We all agree with that. So far, so good.
Quote
In SMOT the ball starts at A with energy (Ma), gains energy Ehand = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)). And ends up at A losing (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies). (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) =/= (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies). SMOT violates CoE.
The "other energies" part, is quite confusing. By my point of view, "other energies" is confused with "detour". The ball is travelling a longer distance when not going directly from B to A - and the hand is virtually placing the ball slightly beyond the top of a hill so it will not fall back directly to point A. OFCOURSE!!
And as we all know, it does not require energy to move mass angular to gravity or magnetic fields. So the ball is just taking a detour via C before coming back at point A. And the reason why the ball is actually coming back to point A isn't because of "other energies" but because of the energy initially imparted to the ball by hand - namely slightly beyond the top of the hill.
There is no "other energies". CoE is obeyed.
PS! I already know that I'm, by your opinion, cluttering this thread with nonsense and heresy, so you don't need to comment that. WE ALL KNOW IT ALREADY.
Cheers 8)
That's incorrect. Read carefully my explanations.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 12:30:30 PM
Quote from: Low-Q on January 22, 2008, 12:25:35 PM
Quote
If CoE were obeyed, the ball starts at A with energy (Ma) it gains Ehand = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)), not other energies. Not other energies. Not other energies, you idiot. And ends up at A losing Ehand, ending up with energy (Ma). CoE isn't violated. This, however, isn't what's happening in SMOT.
We all agree with that. So far, so good.
Quote
In SMOT the ball starts at A with energy (Ma), gains energy Ehand = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)). And ends up at A losing (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies). (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) =/= (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies). SMOT violates CoE.
The "other energies" part, is quite confusing. By my point of view, "other energies" is confused with "detour". The ball is travelling a longer distance when not going directly from B to A - and the hand is virtually placing the ball slightly beyond the top of a hill so it will not fall back directly to point A. OFCOURSE!!
And as we all know, it does not require energy to move mass angular to gravity or magnetic fields. So the ball is just taking a detour via C before coming back at point A. And the reason why the ball is actually coming back to point A isn't because of "other energies" but because of the energy initially imparted to the ball by hand - namely slightly beyond the top of the hill.
There is no "other energies". CoE is obeyed.
PS! I already know that I'm, by your opinion, cluttering this thread with nonsense and heresy, so you don't need to comment that. WE ALL KNOW IT ALREADY.
Cheers 8)
That's incorrect. Read carefully my explanations.
First you must explain:
do you mean:
Quote...at C is only part of the energy (mgh1 + mgh1 + other energies) the ball loses. In SMOT the energy (mgh1 + Mb) lost is greater...
or:
QuoteAnd ends up at A losing (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies). (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) =/= (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies).
Btw:
QuoteIn SMOT the energy (mgh1 + Mb) lost is greater than the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) = Ehand imparted
If the SMOT loose more energy than the energy imparted by the hand, how can it violate CoE?
The ball is still going detour, OR "other energies" = Ehand.
Cheers
For CoE to be obeyed the energy lost by the ball must exactly equal the energy imparted to the ball.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 01:26:21 PM
For CoE to be obeyed the energy lost by the ball must exactly equal the energy imparted to the ball.
I agree. However, Ehand I believe is not only (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)). I think it is (mgh1 - B
(x + y) - (Ma - Mb)), where B
x is exactly the point where the ball is starting to be (slightly) repelled by the magnets, and B
y is the point where the ball is not repelled or attracted to the magnets (The very top of the hill, seen as a virtual example). Both B
x and B
y is between point A and B, and B
y is closest to B. And where the violation comes in I believe is confused with the extra energy B
x + y you must apply with the hand in order to place the ball at point B. So there I think you got that other energy from, but not taken into concideration in the original equation.
Any thaughts about this? - [just4fun]Except for telling me that it is not correct[/just4fun]
Cheers
Quote from: Low-Q on January 22, 2008, 02:31:44 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 01:26:21 PM
For CoE to be obeyed the energy lost by the ball must exactly equal the energy imparted to the ball.
I agree. However, Ehand I believe is not only (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)). I think it is (mgh1 - B(x + y) - (Ma - Mb)), where Bx is exactly the point where the ball is starting to be (slightly) repelled by the magnets, and By is the point where the ball is not repelled or attracted to the magnets (The very top of the hill, seen as a virtual example). Both Bx and By is between point A and B, and By is closest to B. And where the violation comes in I believe is confused with the extra energy Bx + y you must apply with the hand in order to place the ball at point B. So there I think you got that other energy from, but not taken into concideration in the original equation.
Any thaughts about this? - [just4fun]Except for telling me that it is not correct[/just4fun]
Cheers
No, Ehand is exactly (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)).
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 10:39:11 AM
[excerpted quote]
As seen above, in SMOT the energy Ein = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb) = Ehand imparted to the ball to acquire energy (mgh1 + Mb) at C is only part of the energy (mgh1 + mgh1 + other energies) the ball loses. In SMOT the energy (mgh1 + Mb) lost is greater than the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) = Ehand imparted. In SMOT the energy which the ball will have when back at A will be the equivalent to the energy (mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb) + Ma = Ehand + Ma. This is because of the "transformation" part of CoE which isn't violated in SMOT. I repeat, back at A the ball will have the equivalent of (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) which is the same as (Ma = Ehand) if we want to be facetious and split up energies in such a way to deceive people but the ball will not have energy (Ma) back at A. Energy (Ma + Ehand) at isn't the same as energy (Ma) at A. The ball would've had energy (Ma) back at A should CoE be obeyed. Now that CoE isn't obeyed the ball back at A has amaount of energy greater than (Ma), dishonestly split by @modervador for purposes of deceiving people into (Ma) +Ehand.
Hope this helps.
Now, I'm expecting from @modervador, already very clear as to why SMOT disobeys CoE to open a thread in the Steorn forum and explain to several curious souls there that violation. That's the honorable thing to do.
From what I can tell from several posts, CoE has been said to be violated on two ground:
1. (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) > Ein
2. Ea(final) > Ea(initial).
I agree that these equalities are true, but to defend them as violations of CoE, against questioning likely to arise on the Steorn forum, requires nailing down more details.
Let's discuss the idea of "Elost", the energy lost by the ball. Presumably, the ball's loss is our gain, however we can't use the energy unless the ball gives it up. So examining the total energies at points A, B, C and A again, we have:
Ea(initial) = Ma
Ein = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))
Eb = Ea(initial) + Ein = Mb + mgh1
Ec = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc)
Ea(final) = Ma + Ka
While the ball remains at initial point A, it has only potential Ma and no energy can be lost; the ball must move away from A to lose all or part of Ma. The same holds for point B; the ball must move away from B to lose all or part of Mb and/or mgh1. However, once tha ball has accelerated to C, if remaining at point C it has accessible kinetic energy, Kc, which may be harvested and sent outside the system. Therefore, the ball may lose all of this Kc, but to lose all or part of (mgh1 + mgh2), the ball must move away from C, which is exactly what happens when the ball travels onward to return to A without any of the Kc having been removed in this example.
On return to A, the ball loses (mgh1 + mgh2) and the total (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) is transformed into Ma + "other energies", the latter being in the form of kinetic energy Ka, hence Ea(final) = Ma + Ka. At this final point A, the ball can lose only kinetic energy Ka, for to lose all or part of Ma, the ball must move away from A. Therefore, while at final point A, the maximum energy the ball can lose (and we can gain) is Eout = Ka.
With this out of the way, let?s address: Is (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) > Ein a violation of CoE? I can?t really say that it is without receiving further explanation. It is clear that (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) = (Mb + mgh1) is a total energy which results simply from raising the initial state energy, Ea(initial) = Ma, by the amount Ein = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)), i.e. (Mb + mgh1) = (Ea(initial) + Ein). Energies are simply transformed as the ball moves (or is moved) from A to B to C, but all energies are accounted for and no sources appear out of thin air. CoE violation would require that energy appear to spring from or vanish into thin air.
Is Ea(final) > Ea(initial).a violation of CoE? Again, I can?t really say that it is without receiving further explanation. It is clear that because of the "transformation" part of CoE which isn't violated in SMOT, Eb is transformed completely into Ea(final), hence
(Mb + mgh1) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) = Ma + Ka = Ea(final).
Since Ea(final) = (Mb + mgh1) and as already explained (Mb + mgh1) = (Ea(initial) + Ein), there appears no basis to claim that Ea(final) contains unaccounted energies that appear to spring from thin air. Ea(final) is simply Ea(initial) + Ein, which for any positive Ein would mean that Ea(final) > Ea(initial), consistent with CoE?a trivial result.
Furthermore, it is also easily demonstrable (and has been shown) that all of Eout = Ka is a result of Ein supplied to move the ball from A(initial) to B, transforming into other energies on the path B-C-A. Thus barring friction or other losses, Eout = Ein.
If I am to make a convincing case to the Steorn forum that SMOT violates CoE, I need more explanation to counter these arguments that I have put forth. Far better to have the counterarguments already in hand, than to present a case that can be easily shot down by arguments the presenter should have seen coming but cannot answer.
Thank you for your time.
@modervador,
To cut out the wordiness:
The energy Mb lost along B-C appears out of thin air. There?s no source supplying that energy.
Therefore, Ea(final) > Ea(initial) contains energies coming out of no source. This is a violation of CoE.
If CoE were not violated Ea(final) = Ea(initial), as shown.
You already understand this although you?re playing as if you don?t. Now you?ve heard it again and are fully prepared to open a thread in the Steorn forum and explain to the curious fellows there where your mistake was and why you?re convinced now that SMOT violates CoE.
It's preferable not to clutter further this thread with seeming misunderstanding and do what's honorable to do right away--explain to some people in the Steorn forum what your confusion was and how you now clearly understand that SMOT violates CoE.
Quote from: Low-Q on January 22, 2008, 02:31:44 PM
However, Ehand I believe is not only (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)). I think it is (mgh1 - B(x + y) - (Ma - Mb)), where Bx is exactly the point where the ball is starting to be (slightly) repelled by the magnets, and By is the point where the ball is not repelled or attracted to the magnets (The very top of the hill, seen as a virtual example). Both Bx and By is between point A and B, and By is closest to B. And where the violation comes in I believe is confused with the extra energy Bx + y you must apply with the hand in order to place the ball at point B. So there I think you got that other energy from, but not taken into concideration in the original equation.
There might be a local minimum that the ball passes through on the way from A to B, however for the purposes of everything that occurs after the ball is let go at point B, it is sufficient to consider only the magnetic potential at B, which has been defined as Mb. Any magnetic potential energy you must put in to get from point Bx to By would have already been given to you on the way from A to point Bx. The net change in magnetic potential from A to B through points Bx and By is (M
Bx - Ma) + (M
By - M
Bx) + (Mb - M
By) = (Mb - Ma), and the net change in gravitational potential is mgh1, hence Ein = mgh1 + Mb - Ma.
I am somewhat uneasy about a phrase such as "the ball is starting to be (slightly) repelled by the magnets", because I like to think that a simple unmagnetised steel ball is only attracted to magnets, not repelled. I think what's really happening is that the ball is attracted to a point that's somewhat "to the left" of the line drawn between the magnets near point B, due to the shape of the field. In terms of the force vectors, it's the same thing, but the different phrasings speak to the underlying cause in different ways.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 03:06:51 PM
@modervador,
To cut out the wordiness:
The energy Mb lost along B-C appears out of thin air. There?s no source supplying that energy.
Mb comes as a result of the ball having Ma at initial point A. Part of the magnetic potential is lost when the ball is moved from A to B, i.e. Mb < Ma. This is why Ein does not require full mgh1 to achieve height h1, but it is reduced by the amount (Ma ? Mb), i.e. Ein = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)).
Thus the Mb part at point B has been accounted for from a known source and its appearance is consistent with CoE.
Quote from: modervador on January 22, 2008, 03:25:33 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 03:06:51 PM
@modervador,
To cut out the wordiness:
The energy Mb lost along B-C appears out of thin air. There?s no source supplying that energy.
Mb comes as a result of the ball having Ma at initial point A. Part of the magnetic potential is lost when the ball is moved from A to B, i.e. Mb < Ma. This is why Ein does not require full mgh1 to achieve height h1, but it is reduced by the amount (Ma ? Mb), i.e. Ein = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)).
Thus the Mb part at point B has been accounted for from a known source and its appearance is consistent with CoE.
No, the source of Mb is unaccounted for. Carry out a second experiment, then a third, fourth and so on. Who's supplying Mb lost along B-C? Every time you do an experiment you only supply (mgh1 - (Mb - Ma)). Who's supplying the Mb spontaneously lost along B-C?
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 03:37:12 PM
No, the source of Mb is unaccounted for. Carry out a second experiment, then a third, fourth and so on. Who's supplying Mb lost along B-C? Every time you do an experiment you only supply (mgh1 - (Mb - Ma)). Who's supplying the Mb spontaneously lost along B-C?
The Mb in the second experiment comes from the Ma part of Ea(final) from the first experiment.
The Mb in the third experiment comes from the Ma part of Ea(final) from the second experiment.
Etc.
Mb comes as a result of the ball having magnetic potential Ma at point A regardless of how it ended up there. Part of this potential is lost when the ball is moved from A to B, i.e. Mb < Ma. This is why Ein does not require full mgh1 to achieve height h1, but it is reduced by the amount (Ma ââ,¬â€œ Mb), i.e. Ein = (mgh1 ââ,¬â€œ (Ma ââ,¬â€œ Mb)), assuming no kinetic energy is carried over from the previous run.
If we are successful at eliminating friction, Ea(final) from the first experiment is enough to get the ball all the way to point B again without any additional Ein for the second experiment. If however we extract all the Ka in Ea(final) = (Ma + Ka) and send it outside the system during the first experiment, then of course there is only Ma left at point A and to move the ball to B for the second experiment requires again Ein = (mgh1 ââ,¬â€œ (Ma ââ,¬â€œ Mb)).
Quote from: modervador on January 22, 2008, 04:17:26 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 03:37:12 PM
No, the source of Mb is unaccounted for. Carry out a second experiment, then a third, fourth and so on. Who's supplying Mb lost along B-C? Every time you do an experiment you only supply (mgh1 - (Mb - Ma)). Who's supplying the Mb spontaneously lost along B-C?
The Mb in the second experiment comes from the Ma part of Ea(final) from the first experiment.
The Mb in the third experiment comes from the Ma part of Ea(final) from the second experiment.
Etc.
Mb comes as a result of the ball having magnetic potential Ma at point A regardless of how it ended up there. Part of this potential is lost when the ball is moved from A to B, i.e. Mb < Ma. This is why Ein does not require full mgh1 to achieve height h1, but it is reduced by the amount (Ma ? Mb), i.e. Ein = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)), assuming no kinetic energy is carried over from the previous run.
If we are successful at eliminating friction, Ea(final) from the first experiment is enough to get the ball all the way to point B again without any additional Ein for the second experiment. If however we extract all the Ka in Ea(final) = (Ma + Ka) and send it outside the system during the first experiment, then of course there is only Ma left at point A and to move the ball to B for the second experiment requires again Ein = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)).
Not so. It's not regardless of how it got there (back at A, that is) because the ball got back at A exactly because of violation of CoE.
Again, the ball having energy Ma at A which no source has any contribution for, who supplied the energy Mb the ball loses along B-C. We only supplied (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)). Who supplied the rest of the energy, that is energy Mb the ball loses along B-C? Say explicitly what you're supposed to say or I'll continue asking the same question you till the cows come home.
Oh, and don't forget. If CoE is to be obeyed the ball upon its return to A must only lose the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) supplied to it. In SMOT, however, the ball loses energy Mb in addition to energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)). In SMOT the ball loses more energy than the energy imparted to it. This is a clear violation of CoE.
The situation with SMOT is analogous to the following. You look just at any stone as we know them in Nature. A stone lying on the ground suddenly lifts itself up to a height h and then drops back to the ground. Who supplied the energy mgh which the stone lost when it fell on the ground?
This would be a violation of CoE, correct?
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 04:37:09 PM
Not so. It's not regardless of how it got there (back at A, that is) because the ball got back at A exactly because of violation of CoE.
Again, the ball having energy Ma at A which no source has any contribution for, who supplied the energy Mb the ball loses along B-C. We only supplied (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)). Who supplied the rest of the energy, that is energy Mb the ball loses along B-C? Say explicitly what you're supposed to say or I'll continue asking the same question you till the cows come home.
Oh, and don't forget. If CoE is to be obeyed the ball upon its return to A must only lose the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) supplied to it. In SMOT, however, the ball loses energy Mb in addition to energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)). In SMOT the ball loses more energy than the energy imparted to it. This is a clear violation of CoE.
The ball arrives back at A because a working SMOT must be arranged such that (Mb + mgh1) > Ma; violation of CoE is not required.
On any given run, the source of Ma in Ea(final) is Ma in Ea(initial), which transforms along with Ein = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) through (Mb + mgh1) and (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc). CoE violation has not been demonstrated, since all these energies have traceable sources. This can be demonstrated for each subsequent run.
As described in previous posts, Mb (which itself ultimately came from Ea(initial) = Ma) is transformed into (mgh2 + Kc) on segment B to C, but (mgh2 + Kc) transforms into part of Ea(final) = Ma + Ka hence contributes to "recharging" the magnetic potential so as to have Ma when back at A.
As described in previous posts, Ea(final) = Ma + Ka = Ma + Ein. Ma cannot be "lost" by the ball without deviating from point A, thus the maximum that can be lost is Ka = Ein = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)), but never more. Thus in SMOT the ball does not lose more energy than the energy imparted to it. CoE preserved.
@modervador,
?The ball arrives back at A because a working SMOT must be arranged such that (Mb + mgh1) > Ma; violation of CoE is not required.?
The working SMOT may be arranged such that (Mb + mgh1) > Ma but that is a violation of CoE in itself. Because, to achieve that substantial energy the ball has at B, the hand needs to do very little work, namely (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)). Furthermore, it doesn?t matter what that energy (mgh1 + Mb) is greater than. It is a mandatory requirement that the ball should lose only that exact amount (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted to it in order for CoE to be obeyed. It isn?t the case in SMOT, however. In SMOT the ball loses way more energy, namely energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) than the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted to it. Losing more energy than the energy imparted is exactly the criterion for violating CoE. SMOT violates CoE.
Therefore, the way SMOT is constructed presupposes violation of CoE. The very construction of this machine as the construction of numerous others such as the latest one we?re exploring, that of @alsetalokin, if properly tuned up, presuppose violation of CoE.
No more need be said. You choose to ignore the above crucial argument, however, and prefer to expose you lack of thorough comprehension of physics 101. This is typical for many physicists. They use smoke and mirrors to present themselves as the God?s gift to the world wrapping their text in quasi-scientific lingo which not only has no sense but upon closer inspection reveals shocking misunderstanding of elementary things and less than poor logic.
Let?s do a little more analysis, useless scientifically because the above proves violation of CoE categorically but very telling about the character of who we are dealing with:
?On any given run, the source of Ma in Ea(final) is Ma in Ea(initial), which transforms along with Ein = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) through (Mb + mgh1) and (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc). CoE violation has not been demonstrated, since all these energies have traceable sources. This can be demonstrated for each subsequent run.?
Ea(final), however, is greater than Ea(initial) and that?s an undeniable fact. From Physics 101 is known that upon completion of a closed loop in a conservative field CoE forbids that E(final) ? E(initial) =/= 0. In a different context you sure will admit that but when it fits your purpose you?re ready to forget it and deny violation of CoE. The ball (in a gravitational field) on the floor can never have energy equivalent to mgh(h1 + h2) if it were lifted to only height h1 from the floor and then let go. If the ball on the floor has energies equivalent to mg(h1 + h2) but it was lifted only to h1 and dropped from there to the floor that would be a violation of CoE. This is Physics 101.
As for the traceability of sources, it isn?t true that the source of the entire energy E(final) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) is Ma, because E(final) > Ea. Your dishonesty is well known and this is one more example of it. Instead of talking about the total E(final) you finagle and foist on the reader part of E(final), that is only Ma. This won?t pass. You have been nailed down and you will be nailed down every time you try to get away with dishonesty.
?As described in previous posts, Mb (which itself ultimately came from Ea(initial) = Ma) is transformed into (mgh2 + Kc) on segment B to C, but (mgh2 + Kc) transforms into part of Ea(final) = Ma + Ka hence contributes to "recharging" the magnetic potential so as to have Ma when back at A.?
Again, when back at A the ball has Ea(final) > Ma. See the above explanation why this is violating CoE.
At that Ea(final) is recharged spontaneously. Spontaneous ?recharging?, at that with energy at A greater than the initial energy at A is another proof for the violation of CoE. In the usual case when magnets are discussed it is always pointed out that the work gained when a piece of ferromagnetic material is attracted from a given distance to the surface of the magnet is compensated by the exactly same amount of work done to move the ferromagnetic piece away from the magnet back to the initial point. Further, Physics 101 clearly explains that doing work against the magnetic field force isn?t a spontaneous process, let alone being greater than the work gained when the magnet was attracted. All of this is observed in SMOT, however.
These, of course, are details which may not even be commented because the crucial criterion proving violation of CoE has already been pinpointed, namely, the discrepancy between the energy spent (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) and energy (mgh1 + mgh1 + other energies) lost by the ball in SMOT.
?As described in previous posts, Ea(final) = Ma + Ka = Ma + Ein. Ma cannot be "lost" by the ball without deviating from point A, thus the maximum that can be lost is Ka = Ein = (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)), but never more. Thus in SMOT the ball does not lose more energy than the energy imparted to it. CoE preserved.?
Whether or not any part of Ea(final) can be lost or not is immaterial regarding the undeniable fact that Ea(final) > Ea(initial). And that?s the fact which must be emphasized rather than cowardly forgetting about it. Because that fact is the indication for violation of CoE, as explained. What can be lost and what cannot be lost isn?t a criterion whatsoever in regard to whether or not CoE is violated.
Ea(final), that is energy when back at A, is energy exactly equivalent to the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) and it is undeniably greater than the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted. Physics 101 tells us that exactly this comparison, the comparison of the energy imparted to the ball from an initial position A with the energy the ball has when back at that same position A is the criterion for whether or not CoE is violated. Should these two energies differ Physics 101 tell us CoE is violated. Physics 101 never discusses what energy is lost and what energy is retained when back at A. What is of interest to Physics 101 when it discusses CoE is solely and singularly the amount of that energy which should never be different in amount than the energy imparted to the ball if CoE is obeyed.
@modervador knows most of these things (together with some obvious gaps) but he is dishonest and tries to get away with finagling and deceitful practices to get the upper hand. Science isn?t about getting the upper hand but is about truth, something which doesn?t always mix with @modervador.
This thread has turned itself into an exercise in dishonesty and confusion and should be locked. Flooding the conversation with deliberate obfuscation of well-known approaches and concepts as @modervaor is doing to make it appear for the non-attentive reader he?s really saying something of substance is counterproductive and wasteful.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 07:29:24 PM
The working SMOT may be arranged such that (Mb + mgh1) > Ma but that is a violation of CoE in itself. Because, to achieve that substantial energy the ball has at B, the hand needs to do very little work, namely (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)). Furthermore, it doesn?t matter what that energy (mgh1 + Mb) is greater than. It is a mandatory requirement that the ball should lose only that exact amount (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted to it in order for CoE to be obeyed. It isn?t the case in SMOT, however. In SMOT the ball loses way more energy, namely energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) than the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted to it. Losing more energy than the energy imparted is exactly the criterion for violating CoE. SMOT violates CoE.
The ball cannot lose the full (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) it has at C unless it moves away from C. When it does, it goes again to A, and it loses the exact amount (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) which is transformed into kinetic energy, thus CoE is obeyed. The math backs it up explicitly. Your statements above are at odds with the math. The only way to avoid the math is to do the hands-on physics and provide experimental evidence in the form of the measurement of energies at final point A that exceeds the sum of Ea(initial) and Ein.
Quote
Therefore, the way SMOT is constructed presupposes violation of CoE. The very construction of this machine as the construction of numerous others such as the latest one we?re exploring, that of @alsetalokin, if properly tuned up, presuppose violation of CoE.
That sounds a lot like
petitio principii. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)
Quote
Ea(final), however, is greater than Ea(initial) and that?s an undeniable fact. From Physics 101 is known that upon completion of a closed loop in a conservative field CoE forbids that E(final) ? E(initial) =/= 0.
Also from physics 101, it is known that upon completion of a closed loop in a conservative field in which
additional energy external to the field, Ein
is added to the system, E(final) ? E(initial) =/= 0 is consistent with CoE, as a simple consequence of
E(final) = E(initial) + Ein.
Quote
As for the traceability of sources, it isn?t true that the source of the entire energy E(final) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) is Ma, because E(final) > Ea.
You may have misread; I have never claimed such. I have been consistent in asserting that E(final) = E(initial) + Ein = (Ma + Ein) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc). As such, Ma accounts for only part of E(final), not all of it.
Quote
Again, when back at A the ball has Ea(final) > Ma. See the above explanation why this is violating CoE.
At that Ea(final) is recharged spontaneously. Spontaneous ?recharging?, at that with energy at A greater than the initial energy at A is another proof for the violation of CoE.
Recharging of magnetic potential along C to A is not at all spontaneous. It occurs because the ball is moving with kinetic energy Kc at point C, total energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) which is transformed into Ma, as described previously.
Quote
Ea(final), that is energy when back at A, is energy exactly equivalent to the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) and it is undeniably greater than the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted. Physics 101 tells us that exactly this comparison, the comparison of the energy imparted to the ball from an initial position A with the energy the ball has when back at that same position A is the criterion for whether or not CoE is violated. Should these two energies differ Physics 101 tell us CoE is violated. Physics 101 never discusses what energy is lost and what energy is retained when back at A. What is of interest to Physics 101 when it discusses CoE is solely and singularly the amount of that energy which should never be different in amount than the energy imparted to the ball if CoE is obeyed.
No, physics 101 does not demand that Ea(final) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) be equal to imparted Ein = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) for CoE to be obeyed. It demands that E(final) = E(initial) + Ein. This has been shown many times to be true for SMOT.
Physics 101 repeatedly concerns itself with what energy is lost and what energy is retained when back at A. This is the whole idea behind calling it "potential" and other forms of energy. If one is concerned about usable Eout, again this has been already described. Eout = E(final) - Ma = Ka = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) = Ein. It all adds up, the math has been laid bare.
All of this could be tossed out with a single reliable measurement of Eout > Ein. This has not been done with SMOT, thus we discuss it theoretically.
Omnibus' characterizations of my motives in this discussion are incorrect and may reflect his own motives; those who are dishonest are quick to imagine that others are dishonest as well. The record is very clear about who has said what. If Omnibus wishes a discussion of the science, he will stick to the science and dispense with the ad hominem.
@modervador,
1. The math clearly shows that at C the energy the ball has is (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies). This is the amount which, according to the ?transformastion? part of CoE must equal the sum of the energies at A. Not less than that. The amount you mention (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) is less than the amount (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies). Untruths such as this one you?re trying to foist on the reader cannot be an argument in science.
2. You misunderstand the meaning of petitio principii. Physical construction, a device, isn?t a logical proposition assumed. Therefore, results from the analysis of a device can never be petitio principii.
3. You misunderstand Physics 101. It isn?t true that imparting external energy mgh to the ball to lift it from the floor to the table at height h from the floor differs, because it?s externally imparted, from the energy the ball loses when it falls back from the table to the floor. Physics 101 requires the balance of all the energies the ball loses and gains along a closed loop in a conservative to be zero. I isn?t true that Physics 101 would allow a non-zero balance of the energies of a ball moving along a closed loop because some of these energies are externally imparted as you assert. With such assertion you demonstrate a shocking misunderstanding of elementary physics.
If what you?re saying is true CoE will be violated at every step in physics. Misunderstanding Physics 101, as you demonstrate here, can never be a scientific argument.
4. Your admission that in SMOT E(final) > Ea is an admission of the violation of CoE because E(initial) = Ma.
To avoid confusion it has to be understood that the equality E(final) = Ma, which would restore the initial energy Ma at A, thus obeying CoE, can only be achieved if the ball at B having energy (mgh1 + Mb) loses exactly the amount (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted to it. This is not what is observed in SMOT.
What is observed in SMOT is the inequality E(final) > Ma whereby the ball loses upon it?s return at A (transforms spontaneously into various energies) the entire amount (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) = E(final) which is obviously greater than Ma at A. This is in violation of CoE because as just seen for CoE to be obeyed the ball has to lose only part, that is only (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)), of the entire energy (mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies).
5. Experiment proves that recharging along C-A is spontaneous. You deny experimental facts.
6. Physics 101 demands that E(final) be equal to imparted E(in). When insisting that CoE is obeyed Physics 101 is concerned solely with the quantities of energy imparted to the ball and lost by the ball. Physics 101 forbids that the ball can lose more energy than the energy imparted to it when completing a loop in a conservative field. In SMOT imparted energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) differs from the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) lost by the ball when completing the loop. This is in violation of CoE.
7. Physics 101 isn?t concerned with whether or not energy is usable when analyzing CoE. Physics 101 is only concerned with the quantity of energy imparted and quantity of energy lost. These two quantities must be equal according to Physics 101 in order for CoE to be obeyed. In SMOT, as seen, these two quantities aren?t equal which violates the requirement Physics 101 places for CoE to be obeyed.
8. Experiment has been done and it unequivocally proves that while the input energy is Ein = (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) the energy lost by the ball is E(final) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + other energies) because experiment demonstrates that the ball really moves along C-A losing both heights h1 and h2 (experimental fact) as well at coming to a stop at A (experimental fact). No additional experiment is necessary to confirm the already experimentally observed inequality Ein = /= E(final) sufficient to prove violation CoE.
All this has been said numerous times and it is an insult and ad hominem attack to ignore that and try to foist on the reader blatant disregard of elementary physics in the strive to take an upper hand at any rate. You are a disgrace. The only way you can save your integrity is to open a thread in Steorn forum and explain to the people there what you already understand but are trying to cover up by making it sink in a shower of dishonest language. In that Steorn thread you have to explicitly state that you already understood your mistake and now you consider proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that SMOT violates CoE.
Omnibus,
if you really do have a closed loop SMOT,
then why waste all that time arguing with people about the mathematics side of things?
If you really do have a SMOT that keeps going and going and going forever,
then surely it is enough to post your design and a couple of videos of the thing running for like hours on end...?
But I don't see any of this proof... All I see is a very extensive discussion about how to handle the maths...
Now maths may be nice, but the SMOT is a ramp with magnets pulling a ball up, not a bunch of formulae.
You don't have to go through all the mathematics wrestling.
Just show us that perpetually rolling ball in your SMOT arrangement, and have us replicate it.
That's enough.
... so, let's have it then?
Quote from: modervador on January 22, 2008, 03:17:29 PM
Quote from: Low-Q on January 22, 2008, 02:31:44 PM
However, Ehand I believe is not only (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)). I think it is (mgh1 - B(x + y) - (Ma - Mb)), where Bx is exactly the point where the ball is starting to be (slightly) repelled by the magnets, and By is the point where the ball is not repelled or attracted to the magnets (The very top of the hill, seen as a virtual example). Both Bx and By is between point A and B, and By is closest to B. And where the violation comes in I believe is confused with the extra energy Bx + y you must apply with the hand in order to place the ball at point B. So there I think you got that other energy from, but not taken into concideration in the original equation.
There might be a local minimum that the ball passes through on the way from A to B, however for the purposes of everything that occurs after the ball is let go at point B, it is sufficient to consider only the magnetic potential at B, which has been defined as Mb. Any magnetic potential energy you must put in to get from point Bx to By would have already been given to you on the way from A to point Bx. The net change in magnetic potential from A to B through points Bx and By is (MBx - Ma) + (MBy - MBx) + (Mb - MBy) = (Mb - Ma), and the net change in gravitational potential is mgh1, hence Ein = mgh1 + Mb - Ma.
I am somewhat uneasy about a phrase such as "the ball is starting to be (slightly) repelled by the magnets", because I like to think that a simple unmagnetised steel ball is only attracted to magnets, not repelled. I think what's really happening is that the ball is attracted to a point that's somewhat "to the left" of the line drawn between the magnets near point B, due to the shape of the field. In terms of the force vectors, it's the same thing, but the different phrasings speak to the underlying cause in different ways.
Iron can appear as a repelling object to a magnetic field. It is easy to levitate a ball of iron over a magnetic field. The trouth is that the repelling force is due to an attraction in the oposite direction, because in some area before the SMOT magnets, the magnetic flux is stronger behind the ball than in front of it because of the magnetic short cut at both ends of the magnets. What I mean by "behind the ball" is the area where the ball is traveling away from.
"Repelling" is not a correct word. I agree.
Vidar
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2008, 03:06:51 PM
@modervador,
To cut out the wordiness:
1. The energy Mb lost along B-C appears out of thin air. Thereââ,¬â,,¢s no source supplying that energy.
2. Therefore, Ea(final) > Ea(initial) contains energies coming out of no source. This is a violation of CoE.
If CoE were not violated Ea(final) = Ea(initial), as shown.
You already understand this although youââ,¬â,,¢re playing as if you donââ,¬â,,¢t. Now youââ,¬â,,¢ve heard it again and are fully prepared to open a thread in the Steorn forum and explain to the curious fellows there where your mistake was and why youââ,¬â,,¢re convinced now that SMOT violates CoE.
It's preferable not to clutter further this thread with seeming misunderstanding and do what's honorable to do right away--explain to some people in the Steorn forum what your confusion was and how you now clearly understand that SMOT violates CoE.
It's late, so maybe I have missed a few explanations here:
1. I can agree that the source of energy appears to come out from nothing, but I'm still not comfortable with the claim. As Mc is stronger than Mb, just means that the ball is forced in that direction. Even if it is upwards, the energy provided to the ball is the same as the relationship between the mass and magnetic attraction.
Now:
What about Kc? Kc is a sum of kinetic energy between the ball and the magnets inner poles, Kc
Mbetween, and the kinetic energy between the ball and point A, Kc
G, where M
between is the magnetic force between the ball and the magnets inner poles, and G is the gravitional force on the ball. As the ball is able to escape from C means that Kc
G is greater than Kc
Mbetween. That means there is a kinetic energy between the ball and the magnets inner poles at point C, and a kinetic gravitional energy between the ball and point A.
When the ball starts to escape from C towards A, the ball will still have the kinetic energy Kc
Mbetween a small distance untill the point where the ball is in perfect balance between attraction from the magnets inner poles and outer poles, where Kc
Mbetween = Kc
Moutside = Kc
0 = 0, where Kc
Moutside is the kinetic energy between the ball and the magnets outer poles. What left at this point is the kinetic energy between the ball and point A, Kc
G.
Further, beyond the point Kc
0, Kc
Moutside will influence the ball all the way down to A, so the energy the ball gains from B to C, which appeard to come from nothing, is then lost when the ball reach point A.
Maybe @modevador have something to say about this as well (?).
2. Therfor, Ea(final) < Ea(initial) contains no applied energies from thin air, plus other losses as heat. CoE is obeyed.
Good night, it's 12:30AM
@all,
Find bellow a short description of SMOT, its behavior and some interpretation based on classical physics. Comments are welcome.
(Please take it slowly if not familiar with concepts. I?ll try to answer to specific questions and/or critical comments, in the limits of available time.)
http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/energy.htm
?According to the law of conservation of energy, the total energy of a system remains constant, though energy may transform into another form.?
The total energy in SMOT is:
Eb=mgh1+Mb; (Kb=0)
Ec=mgh1+mgh2+Kc; (Mc=0 by convention)
Eb=Ec
Total energy in C is transformed into magnetic potential and kinetic energy in A.
Ea=Ma+Ka
Ea=Eb=Ec
where:
Ma, Mb, Mc: magnetic potential of the system in A,B,C;
Ka, Kb, Kc: kinetic energy in A, B, C
h1: vertical distance between B and A
h2: vertical distance between C and B
Ea, Eb, Ec: total energy of the system in A, B, C
m: mass of the ball
g: gravitational acceleration.
In the absence of friction, ball in SMOT will continually loop, assuming that an appropriate mechanical track (i.e. a tube) is provided. In this idealized looping, total energy remains constant, transformed from magnetic potential into gravitational potential into kinetic energy according to Ea=Eb=Ec, which is equivalent to Ma+Ka=mgh1+Mb=mgh1+mgh2+Kc.
Because no practical SMOT can be ideal, some energy is lost in any case. However, the particular setup of SMOT forces the ball to stop in A, meaning that the ball dissipates all of its kinetic energy in A as heat, sound etc. (This is not an engineering problem but the choice of the experimenter who decided to terminate the track as the ball to come to a full stop in A.) Thus, Ka is taken out of SMOT at every cycle and it has to be replenished in order for the next cycle to be able to take place. This replenish of energy is done by the experimenter?s hand, as follows:
From the above equation (Ma+Ka=mgh1+Mb) it can easily be seen that Ka=mgh1+Mb-Ma. But Ein=mhg1+Mb-Ma (computed by subtracting the potential energy of A from B) and is also equal with Ka, having the same algebraic equation.
http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/potentialenergy.htm
?Potential energy, or stored energy, is the ability of a system to do work due to its position or internal structure. For example, gravitational potential energy is a stored energy determined by an object's position in a gravitational field while elastic potential energy is the energy stored in a spring.?
One can not take the ball as an isolated object and make deductions. The system of ball-magnets (i.e. the whole SMOT in its entireness) has to be considered at all times, because of continuous manifesting magnetic (and gravitational) interaction between the sub-components. In an ideal looped SMOT, notice that the movement of the ball is non-uniform and it may be considered highly counter-intuitive: the ball accelerates from B to C (apparently uphill) and then decelerates when passing C toward A (apparently downhill) then decelerates again from A to B (this is the only one which seems intuitive, as the ball decelerates uphill). However, at a closer inspection it is seen that the ball merely transforms its energy from one form into another.
It can be thus seen that the ball is not and can not be considered in isolation. If one does, it will reach false conclusions. For instance, one possible mistake is considering that ball in C has a gravitational potential energy equal to (mgh1+mgh2). This is not correct: the system ball-Earth has a gravitational potential energy equal to (mgh1+mgh2), not the ball itself. One may say this is a mere un-important semantic detail. Not so! That?s because the ball is not free in respect to Earth but it is constrained by another potential field: the magnetic one (i.e. the ball is ?connected? with the magnets in SMOT). Therefore, it can be seen that although gravitational potential exist, the total potential field (sum of gravitational and magnetic) is the one governing the movement. In this respect, one can not expect that the ball in C will gravitationally free fall; the ball will never leave C if it doesn?t have enough kinetic energy (Kc) to overcome the powerful magnetic attraction.
After such long preparative, one of the main issues can be addressed: it looks puzzling at a first glance that the ball in C has both gravitational potential energy and quite a large kinetic energy.
Well, does it?! Let us dissect it.
The ball in C has exactly the same total energy as in B:
Ec=mgh1+mgh2+Kc
Eb=mgh1+Mb
The movement from B to C is not much different as when placing a magnet above a ball on a table and observing the ball is vertically lifted to the magnet. It can be seen that Eb=Ec means further that Mb=mgh2+Kc, which physically means that magnetic potential Mb is transformed into gravitational potential and kinetic energy. Exactly the same process as in simple magnet-lifting-ball experiment: the ball is obviously lifted (magnetic potential is transformed into gravitational potential energy) and it is accelerated (it gains kinetic energy and quite a lot of it, depending on the ?strength of the magnets?; the final ?klunch? sometimes violent sound is nothing else but Kc being transformed into sound and heat.). In SMOT, however, the difference is that Kc is not being lost and this needs to be immediately discussed.
For that, first let?s assume that you have conducted the magnet-lifting-ball experiment and you ended with the ball stuck to the magnet. Obviously, some energy needs to be provided in order to remove the ball. How much energy? Physics, (but also common logic) because of time-reversal-symmetry-equation reasons, says the ball needs exactly Kc joules for reversing the process. Now, after supplying that energy needed to reverse the process, one has a falling ball having initially quite a large kinetic energy: Kc. Let?s us remind that the ball is falling in gravitational field. Does it accelerate, as intuition might say it would, further increasing its kinetic energy in addition to the Kc already provided?! Nope. In fact, the ball will decelerate and it will very gently land on the same initial departing point on the table. This may sound un-realistic but the whole difficulty would be purely practical, namely in providing the ball with exactly Kc energy, not more and not less. Isn?t it interesting that with a simple magnet, the ball accelerates upward and decelerates downward? Where does its initial (kinetic-Kc and potential-mgh energy) go? Does it vanish? No. It goes back into the magnetic potential that lifted the ball in the first place.
Coming back to Eb and Ec, following the above it is easily to understand that:
1. Kc is needed for the ball being able of getting out of SMOT; this energy can not be removed or the ball would become stuck in SMOT, thus not in agreement with SMOT experiment (no cyclical operation possible anymore; a slightly different discussion would then be needed but not much different from the current one);
2. Although gravitational potential and kinetic energy are both highest in C, there is no contradiction in both of these energies being later transformed back into magnetic potential (Ma).
3. It has been repeatedly stated that Ec>Ein, where Ein=input energy. (This issue was also previously discussed but hereby addressed again mainly for completeness). First: SMOT will require no input energy if an appropriate looping track is provided (see the top), thus Ein =0. But obviously Ec>0 (Kc can be strictly positive and so are h1 and h2). It results that Ec>Ein=0 in ideal case.
Second: because in the analyzed experiment Ka is ?extracted? out of the system (i.e. the ball is forced to stop in A) but Etotal=Eb=Ec=Ea=Ma+Ka, where also Ma>0 according to the assumed convention, it can be seen that always Ec>Ein, both in ideal (Ein=0) and non-ideal (Ein>0) case.
Indeed, Ec>Ein and I am not aware of anyone challenging the truth of this fact. But it does have a very illuminating explanation: Ec is total energy and Ein=Eout, thus, by rewriting the inequality we have Eout<Etotal. This is quite a startling state of facts, because it not only supports CoE but it actually shows that SMOT is literarily one of the worst devices conceived: one can not get out the energy he consumes in the first place (when constructing SMOT and its magnetic fields)!
(I will not further comment on Eout<Etotal because I know the rationale above and the length of this post might be well beyond what?s customary here and furthermore a discussion on possible Eout=Etotal seems even lengthier although possibly exciting nonetheless. So be remain the simple Eout<Etotal and its mathematical proof and physical interpretation for now.)
Analog SMOT-like experiment that can help grasping the above:
On a horizontal plane, a magnet is placed and secured. A ball is launched from a convenient distance and at a suitable angle toward the magnet, as to close by and not remained magnetically trapped. (The trajectory of the ball will be curved due to attraction but this is of no relevance here).
Marking with B (not A, for reasons of analogy with SMOT) the launching point and with C the point of minimal distance between the ball and the magnet and having
Kb: initial kinetic energy of the ball;
Kc: kinetic energy in C;
Mb: magnetic potential in B;
Mc: magnetic potential to the closest point the ball approaches the magnet,
Kb+Mb=Kc+Mc (conservation of energy, where Kb+Mb=Eb and Kc+Mc=Ec).
Because C is being closer to the magnet than B we have Mb>Mc.
Thus, it results that Kc>Kb.
Interpretation: the ball accelerates, having its greatest kinetic energy in C. In fact, Kb may be arbitrarily small (the ball is placed freely in B, without kinetic energy; Kb=0) and it will suddenly accelerate toward C. However, this acceleration is done at the expense of magnetic field. (It is not free energy). Moreover, kinetic energy in C can not be extracted from the system without perturbing it (i.e. the ball becoming magnetically stuck in C).
Final thoughts: All discussion is somewhat pointless, because CoE can not be proved within a theory that is based on CoE. CoE can not be disproved either this way. For either one or another, a new theory would be needed, supported by or conceived upon experimental results. Otherwise, all arguments are futile since actual equations implicitly and/or explicitly assume CoE (for instance in Ein=mgh1+Mb-Ma, the assumption of conservative property for both gravitational and magnetic field is included and so is CoE validity. Same is true for all equations posted.) But the possible use of above discussion on SMOT is mainly educational and/or recreational.
Cheers,
Tinu
P.S. I propose to contain the discussion on SMOT into this thread, not only for easy reference in the future but also to avoid contaminating the whole forum.
Nice analysis Tinu!
:)
@tinu,
You shouldn't thank @Koen1 for praising your analysis because he should have told you just the opposite--your analysis is incorrect. The whole text is a bunch of crap at the basis of which lies your premise that total energy of the system is (mgh1 + Mb), let alone that Eb = Ec. Even @modervador doesn't allow himself to utter such stupid things, not recognizing that mgh1 is energy external to the system (input into the system) and that Ec = (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) which isn't at all Mb. You're embarrassingly stupid and uneducated and instead of hiding somewhere and silently following the discussion in the hope to learn something you impudently annoy and insult the intelligence of any thinking person in this forum. What nerve.
Yeah yeah, bla bla,
you keep shouting that you have OU in the SMOT, and that whoever puts forth a critical analysis is wrong,
but so far you still haven't shown me a continuously moving SMOT, nor any other form of closed loop SMOT.
Why don't you put your money where your big mouth is, and build this mythological closed looped SMOT,
and post your videos of it here?
I am sure that everyone will graceously acknowledge your mathematical analysis to be correct, when
they finally get to see some proper empirical proof, instead of only mathematical wishfull thinking.
Quote from: Koen1 on January 28, 2008, 11:00:47 AM
Yeah yeah, bla bla,
you keep shouting that you have OU in the SMOT, and that whoever puts forth a critical analysis is wrong,
but so far you still haven't shown me a continuously moving SMOT, nor any other form of closed loop SMOT.
Why don't you put your money where your big mouth is, and build this mythological closed looped SMOT,
and post your videos of it here?
I am sure that everyone will graceously acknowledge your mathematical analysis to be correct, when
they finally get to see some proper empirical proof, instead of only mathematical wishfull thinking.
Hey, buddy, read what I write before posting. I can't repeat the same thing hundreds of times. The only criterion for whether or not CoE is violated is the comparison of the input and lost energy. Nothing else. Therefore, whether or not a given device is self-sustaining is immaterial with regard to violation of CoE. Only the comparison of the mentioned energies is what matters. The comparison of their quantities, not whether or not they are useful or not and whether or not they can result in a self-sustaining device is what tells us whether or not the CoE is violated.
And why don't you read what I write before posting?
Post a video of your closed loop SMOT!
Then get back to your mathematics ad infinitum.
You can calculate how much the ball might roll all you want, but that still doesn't make the ball actually roll.
First make the ball roll continuously. Then calculate for us how much energy is produced.
Quote from: Koen1 on January 28, 2008, 12:16:45 PM
And why don't you read what I write before posting?
Post a video of your closed loop SMOT!
Then get back to your mathematics ad infinitum.
You can calculate how much the ball might roll all you want, but that still doesn't make the ball actually roll.
First make the ball roll continuously. Then calculate for us how much energy is produced.
Read what I write and don't clutter the thread with nonsense.
@ all,
can anyone, please just start to substitute some of these variables into real numbers, just for the sake of real argument, instead of all of this hypothetical, bs? lets just say that the mass of the ball is _____. then we can work from there. forget time it might not be relative. what about gravity we should be able to come up with some real numbers for that. can anyone think of any other variable that can be filled in with real numbers. get out of the abstract math and i think this disscussion can be wrapped up pretty quickly, one way or the other! quit with all the name calling and just do the real math. there are answers to alot of the variables here so why not just start doing the real math instead of looking at the abstract or opinions of each other?
lol
sam
ps: just my thoughts as a layman.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 28, 2008, 12:18:23 PM
Quote from: Koen1 on January 28, 2008, 12:16:45 PM
And why don't you read what I write before posting?
Post a video of your closed loop SMOT!
Then get back to your mathematics ad infinitum.
You can calculate how much the ball might roll all you want, but that still doesn't make the ball actually roll.
First make the ball roll continuously. Then calculate for us how much energy is produced.
Read what I write and don't clutter the thread with nonsense.
That's what I said. Stop copying me!
And where's your video? I still don't see your closed loop SMOT...
Or have you decided that, if you can't actually convince us with proof, you're going to try to baffle us with bullshit?
What is so diffucult to understand about my posts? It's very simple: you should stop posting kilometers of text and mathematics
in fruitless ateempts to convince people here, and you should start building this claimed closed looped SMOT and filming it, then posting your videos here for us all to watch in awe and humility.
If you refuse to do that, then what reason do we have to assume your mathematics is sound?
Repeating the same thing over and over again is not a way of explaining, nor of convincing people.
Don't you see that?
You're like the typical stereotype tourist who doesn't speak the language and for some illogical reason is convinced that simply repeating himself much louder will magically make the natives understand English.
A much more effective way would be to act it out, and people can watch and understand.
@omnibus,
show me the numbers!! not a bunch of hypothical, bs! show me the numbers for mass. show me the numbers for your variables. all of them!! or shut the f up.
lol
sam
ps: i know this is blunt, but!
Quote from: Koen1 on January 28, 2008, 04:05:21 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on January 28, 2008, 12:18:23 PM
Quote from: Koen1 on January 28, 2008, 12:16:45 PM
And why don't you read what I write before posting?
Post a video of your closed loop SMOT!
Then get back to your mathematics ad infinitum.
You can calculate how much the ball might roll all you want, but that still doesn't make the ball actually roll.
First make the ball roll continuously. Then calculate for us how much energy is produced.
Read what I write and don't clutter the thread with nonsense.
That's what I said. Stop copying me!
And where's your video? I still don't see your closed loop SMOT...
Or have you decided that, if you can't actually convince us with proof, you're going to try to baffle us with bullshit?
What is so diffucult to understand about my posts? It's very simple: you should stop posting kilometers of text and mathematics
in fruitless ateempts to convince people here, and you should start building this claimed closed looped SMOT and filming it, then posting your videos here for us all to watch in awe and humility.
If you refuse to do that, then what reason do we have to assume your mathematics is sound?
Repeating the same thing over and over again is not a way of explaining, nor of convincing people.
Don't you see that?
You're like the typical stereotype tourist who doesn't speak the language and for some illogical reason is convinced that simply repeating himself much louder will magically make the natives understand English.
A much more effective way would be to act it out, and people can watch and understand.
Stop posting nonsense. All these questions have been answered. Read what I write and try to understand it. If you can't, as is obviously the case, restrain from cluttering the already too cluttered thread.
Quote from: supersam on January 28, 2008, 04:28:34 PM
@omnibus,
show me the numbers!! not a bunch of hypothical, bs! show me the numbers for mass. show me the numbers for your variables. all of them!! or shut the f up.
lol
sam
ps: i know this is blunt, but!
You shut up. What I've presented is enough to conclude the SMOT violates CoE.
omnibus,
what is your problem? all i have asked you for is some, simple, if you have actually done the experiment, quantatative numbers, that should correspond perfectly, with the maths that you, reguarly cling to, like a rabbit caught in a snair. please just put one value to any of the variables that you present as absolute truth of the violation of the COE to light. i, dare you! obviously you do not want the real proof to come to light. you are so funny!
lol
sam
Quote from: supersam on January 28, 2008, 05:39:23 PM
omnibus,
what is your problem? all i have asked you for is some, simple, if you have actually done the experiment, quantatative numbers, that should correspond perfectly, with the maths that you, reguarly cling to, like a rabbit caught in a snair. please just put one value to any of the variables that you present as absolute truth of the violation of the COE to light. i, dare you! obviously you do not want the real proof to come to light. you are so funny!
lol
sam
I have already presented the real proof. If you don't understand that, that's your problem.
@omnibus,
i beg to differ! you have have shown a bunch of hypothetical bs that is nothing more than a dream algebraic want to be equation that does'nt add up. SHOW ME THE NUMBERS! WHAT PART OF THAT IS SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND/ I DON'T CARE IF YOU EXPLAIN IT I RODIN MATH!!!! YOU JUST ARE NOT GETTING THE FACT THAT YOU CAN NOT EXPLAIN THIS WITH REAL MATH! BECAUSE WHAT YOU PROPOSE DOESN'T EXIST, IN REAL MATH!!! SO TRY A DIFFERENT TACK.
lol
sam,
ps: you can't drive straight into the wind when sailing either.
Quote from: supersam on January 28, 2008, 05:58:09 PM
@omnibus,
i beg to differ! you have have shown a bunch of hypothetical bs that is nothing more than a dream algebraic want to be equation that does'nt add up. SHOW ME THE NUMBERS! WHAT PART OF THAT IS SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND/ I DON'T CARE IF YOU EXPLAIN IT I RODIN MATH!!!! YOU JUST ARE NOT GETTING THE FACT THAT YOU CAN NOT EXPLAIN THIS WITH REAL MATH! BECAUSE WHAT YOU PROPOSE DOESN'T EXIST, IN REAL MATH!!! SO TRY A DIFFERENT TACK.
lol
sam,
ps: you can't drive straight into the wind when sailing either.
The above shows your incompetence. Restrain from posting on that topic.
@omnibus,
then just show me the numbers, that have any correlation to your reallity of how smot works. oh yea i am still waiting for these numbers with my own in hand. can't wait for your reply, "my bitch", maybe you should look at some of pequaides numbers before you make a total ass of yourself. take all the time you need because you will need it if you start to put some real numbers into your equations. ohh, and this is nothing like a pendulum? maybe you should look at a dual pendulum before you are so sure. at least it was proven to be twelve times overunity. and way before SMOT.
lol
sam
Quote from: supersam on January 28, 2008, 06:09:10 PM
@omnibus,
then just show me the numbers, that have any correlation to your reallity of how smot works. oh yea i am still waiting for these numbers with my own in hand. can't wait for your reply, "my bitch", maybe you should look at some of pequaides numbers before you make a total ass of yourself. take all the time you need because you will need it if you start to put some real numbers into your equations. ohh, and this is nothing like a pendulum? maybe you should look at a dual pendulum before you are so sure. at least it was proven to be twelve times overunity. and way before SMOT.
lol
sam
You're nothing to be shown. You're incompetent and should know your place.
Quote from: supersam on January 28, 2008, 05:58:09 PM
@omnibus,
i beg to differ!Ã, you have have shown a bunch of hypothetical bs that is nothing more than a dream algebraic want to be equation that does'nt add up.Ã, SHOW ME THE NUMBERS!Ã, WHAT PART OF THAT IS SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND/Ã, I DON'T CARE IF YOU EXPLAIN IT I RODIN MATH!!!!Ã, YOU JUST ARE NOT GETTING THE FACT THAT YOU CAN NOT EXPLAIN THIS WITH REAL MATH!Ã, BECAUSE WHAT YOU PROPOSE DOESN'T EXIST, IN REAL MATH!!!Ã, Ã, SO TRY A DIFFERENT TACK.
lol
sam,
ps:Ã, you can't drive straight into the wind when sailing either.
Math cannot prove anything. If you cannot grasp the concept, the equation will be meaningless to you. If you don't want to understand Omnibus' theory, no one can force you to. Why don't you stop shouting as one in the wind, and do something meaningful?
@g4,
i would really like to. but based on what? the facts as omnibus see's them? and exactly what are those facts? an equation that he has pulled out of his ass! surely you must be kidding? or do you really believe that he is on to something. maybe you should spend your time developing, the right engineering principles to make this work, good luck!!!! no else has been able to so far because no one has been able to produce any quantatative data to support omnibus's fucked up argument to begin with! all i have asked for, to get lambasted by omni is, please just give me one variable and then we will go from there. but, no, instead i am the dweeb, that doesn't understand a simple concept like the "violation of the coeffiecient of energy". right maybe i am the dweeb, but at least i am not spouting the violation of, coe, at the top of my lungs with no better proof than, because i say so, you dumbasses don't even deserve any real numbers. what a bunch of schmucks to even ask for real numbers? can';t you see that it is obvious! havn't i allready told you it is obvious. how dare you question me!!!
lol
sam
@g4: you misunderstand. It is not that we do not want to understand Omnibus's "theory", we do understand what it is he keeps saying.
It's just that we want to see actual measurement data and actual empirical proof that what he describes will happen according to his "theory" is truly what happens in reality.
So far all Omnibus does is just repeat his calculations over and over again, and call anyone who doesn't submit to his holy vision an idiot, but one thing he has not done is the simple fact of proving his assumptions correct by showing us this closed loop, continually rolling SMOT, which according to his math should be a piece of cake will all the OU going on in his SMOT.
So far the only excess energy seems to be in Omnibus himself and his fingers, who seem to be able to type indefinitely without ever getting tired.
But proving his right by simply filming his eternally rolling SMOT is beyond his capabilities, apparently...
... could it be that he doesn't have a continuous SMOT at all, that all he has is his calculations, and that there is zero empirical proof?
That would explain his behaviour... ;)
Quote from: supersam on January 28, 2008, 07:44:37 PM
@g4,
i would really like to.Ã, but based on what?Ã, the facts as omnibus see's them?Ã, and exactly what are those facts?Ã, an equation that he has pulled out of his ass!Ã, surely you must be kidding?Ã, or do you really believe that he is on to something.Ã, maybe you should spend your time developing, the right engineering principles to make this work, good luck!!!! no else has been able to so far because no one has been able to produce any quantatative data to support omnibus's fucked up argument to begin with!Ã, all i have asked for, to get lambasted by omni is, please just give me one variable and then we will go from there.Ã, but, no, instead i am the dweeb, that doesn't understand a simple concept like the "violation of the coeffiecient of energy". right maybe i am the dweeb, but at least i am not spouting the violation of, coe, at the top of my lungs with no better proof than,Ã, because i say so,Ã, you dumbasses don't even deserve any real numbers.Ã, what a bunch of schmucks to even ask for real numbers?Ã, can';t you see that it is obvious!Ã, havn't i allready told you it is obvious.Ã, how dare you question me!!!
lol
sam
If what Omnibus is saying is so stupid and unworthy of consideration. What are you doing here? Why all the expletives? To me, you appear as a much greater schmuck. Buh-Bye!
Quote from: supersam on January 28, 2008, 05:58:09 PM
ps: you can't drive straight into the wind when sailing either.
oops, someone should tell these guys http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRYkIzjmCR4&NR=1 :D
@ runningbear,
touche! the blades are deflecting the wind and creating a vacuum! the same as tacking. or the same principle that puts great big hunks of metal in the sky. though it is an interesting way of doing it.
lol
sam
ps: never new there was that much power!
pss: if i had to bet i would say a little tailwind was added, or, " E hand"!
Quote from: supersam on January 29, 2008, 02:58:19 PM
touche! the blades are deflecting the wind and creating a vacuum! the same as tacking. or the same principle that puts great big hunks of metal in the sky. though it is an interesting way of doing it.
It is indeed the same as tacking. The windmill is a sail on a spiral tack, with a component of its motion at a right angle to the wind just like a tacking sail. It is connected to a gear reduction which powers the wheels. It trades power at high velocity and low drag (windmill) for power at low velocity and high force (wheels) , completely consistent with conservation of energy.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 28, 2008, 05:46:37 PM
Quote from: supersam on January 28, 2008, 05:39:23 PM
omnibus,
what is your problem? all i have asked you for is some, simple, if you have actually done the experiment, quantatative numbers, that should correspond perfectly, with the maths that you, reguarly cling to, like a rabbit caught in a snair. please just put one value to any of the variables that you present as absolute truth of the violation of the COE to light. i, dare you! obviously you do not want the real proof to come to light. you are so funny!
lol
sam
I have already presented the real proof. If you don't understand that, that's your problem.
I think the problem does not lie there. The problem is that the hand determinds where B is suppose to be located. "Accidently" the hand determind to place B where the ball don't roll backwards and falls back directly to A, but rolls forward to C. Honestly, I cannot understand you're not seeing this.
Vidar
I'm not perfect, but let us at least TRY to be more objective. Anyone should know ones place, competent or incompetent. That includes @omnibus too.
Vidar
@vidar,
exactly, but, how do you show that with "no numbers", the one being a given.
lol
sam
Quote from: supersam on January 29, 2008, 05:57:35 PM
@vidar,
exactly, but, how do you show that with "no numbers", the one being a given.
lol
sam
I don't quite understand the question - I'm not the smartest guy here. Maybe you should ask @omnibus... :D
lol :)
let's hope Omnibus is now finally building his closed looped SMOT in physical reality instead of his imagination.
If it does work, we should expect to get flooded with success videos. In that case I'll gladly compliment him on
the achievement, as it will indeed be a good day for mankind, and perhaps an even better one for Omnibus. ;)
If it doesn't, we can expect never to hear from Omnibus again, or at least we can expect him to never ever tell us about his
closed loop experiment failure...
In any case, it is my sincere hope that Omnibus is now finally moving on to the empirical proof part of research.
I hope I do not get ribbed too hard for necromancing this smot thread, but I had a question for Omnibus. In the drawing below, I have an alternate SMOT scenario. Instead of a magnet, we are using a red bungee cord. The ball initially dangles around point A. Then (and this is the position of the drawing) the ball is placed by the experimenter at point B, where it experiences a significant level of tension from the bungee cable. The experimenter lets go, and the ball of course immediately and spontaneously rises to point C. At this point, the ball runs out of ramp and of course initially lunges toward the base of the bungee cable. The ball then falls and comes to rest somewhere at point A.
Assume the ramp is split to allow the bungee cable to remain attached.
Is the principle of CoE broken in this scenario, with the bungee cable substituting for magnets?
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 11, 2008, 12:19:38 AM
I hope I do not get ribbed too hard for necromancing this smot thread
Arrrrrrghhh.........My head hurts........ :D :D :D :D
@shruggedaltas,
This would be analogous to SMOT if the ball returns spontaneously to B.
No, it would be analogous to smot if the ball returns to A
Quote from: acp on March 11, 2008, 08:33:42 AM
No, it would be analogous to smot if the ball returns to A
Don't blabber nonsense. I repeat, it will be analogous to SMOT if the ball returns spontaneously at B.
I'm not going to allow stupidity to prevail. This is a warning.
Johannes Taisnierius device (SMOT and the magnetic propulsor) is of singular importance in science. It is the only device so far which proves reproducibly violation of CoE beyond a shadow of a doubt. The obvious difficulties which are encountered to utilize that violation in a somewhat more practical device (permanent magnet motor) may or may not be overcome but the far-reaching consequences for science following from this device cannot be overemphasized.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 11, 2008, 12:19:38 AM
I hope I do not get ribbed too hard for necromancing this smot thread, but I had a question for Omnibus. In the drawing below, I have an alternate SMOT scenario. Instead of a magnet, we are using a red bungee cord. The ball initially dangles around point A. Then (and this is the position of the drawing) the ball is placed by the experimenter at point B, where it experiences a significant level of tension from the bungee cable. The experimenter lets go, and the ball of course immediately and spontaneously rises to point C. At this point, the ball runs out of ramp and of course initially lunges toward the base of the bungee cable. The ball then falls and comes to rest somewhere at point A.
Assume the ramp is split to allow the bungee cable to remain attached.
Is the principle of CoE broken in this scenario, with the bungee cable substituting for magnets?
Hi,
Is the red bungee cord fixed in point X? Is the bungee cord some kind of a rubber band with a ball fixed at the other end?
@shruggedatlas' example need not be discussed any further. It is not an analog of SMOT.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 07:20:49 AM
@shruggedaltas,
This would be analogous to SMOT if the ball returns spontaneously to B.
A SMOT does not allow the ball to return sontaneously to point B. The experimenter must use energy to place th ball at point B in any case - shruggedatlas idea, or with SMOT.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 10:53:50 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 07:20:49 AM
@shruggedaltas,
This would be analogous to SMOT if the ball returns spontaneously to B.
A SMOT does not allow the ball to return sontaneously to point B. The experimenter must use energy to place th ball at point B in any case - shruggedatlas idea, or with SMOT.
Vidar
Stop with this stupidity.
@Shruggedatlas idea is perfectly equivalent to SMOT. No doubt about that. Quite obvious, so to speak. I say "equivalent" as the type of physical manner of operation is different. Doesn't matter. @Shruggedatlas has even accounted for the tention of the cord on its way from B to C, where the tension is least right before the ball is passing point C, as the cords base is angular to the ramp right before the ramps very end at point C + the weight ofthe ball. The very same thing happening in a SMOT.
So @Shruggedatlas idea is perfectly analogous to SMOT.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 10:37:51 AM
Hi,
Is the red bungee cord fixed in point X? Is the bungee cord some kind of a rubber band with a ball fixed at the other end?
Yes, this is what I meant, Low-Q. It is exactly like a rubber band.
I also don't see how in the original SMOT example, the ball spontaneously returns to B. It only returns to A. The experimenter has to lift it to B.
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 11:06:31 AM
@Shruggedatlas idea is perfectly equivalent to SMOT. No doubt about that. Quite obvious, so to speak. I say "equivalent" as the type of physical manner of operation is different. Doesn't matter. @Shruggedatlas has even accounted for the tention of the cord on its way from B to C, where the tension is least right before the ball is passing point C, as the cords base is angular to the ramp right before the ramps very end at point C + the weight ofthe ball.
So @Shruggedatlas idea is perfectly analogous to SMOT.
Vidar
If you don't want to hear repeatedly how stupid you are restrain from splashing your nonsense all over this forum.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 11, 2008, 11:06:43 AM
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 10:37:51 AM
Hi,
Is the red bungee cord fixed in point X? Is the bungee cord some kind of a rubber band with a ball fixed at the other end?
Yes, this is what I meant, Low-Q. It is exactly like a rubber band.
I also don't see how in the original SMOT example, the ball spontaneously returns to B. It only returns to A. The experimenter has to lift it to B.
The rubber band idea crossed my mind while writing :).
You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 11:09:55 AM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 11, 2008, 11:06:43 AM
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 10:37:51 AM
Hi,
Is the red bungee cord fixed in point X? Is the bungee cord some kind of a rubber band with a ball fixed at the other end?
Yes, this is what I meant, Low-Q. It is exactly like a rubber band.
I also don't see how in the original SMOT example, the ball spontaneously returns to B. It only returns to A. The experimenter has to lift it to B.
The rubber band idea crossed my mind while writing :).
You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A.
Vidar
Stupid people such as you should also have a way to express themselves but they should not do it unrestrained. Because you don't know your place and limits someone has to show them to you.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 11:07:53 AM
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 11:06:31 AM
@Shruggedatlas idea is perfectly equivalent to SMOT. No doubt about that. Quite obvious, so to speak. I say "equivalent" as the type of physical manner of operation is different. Doesn't matter. @Shruggedatlas has even accounted for the tention of the cord on its way from B to C, where the tension is least right before the ball is passing point C, as the cords base is angular to the ramp right before the ramps very end at point C + the weight ofthe ball.
So @Shruggedatlas idea is perfectly analogous to SMOT.
Vidar
If you don't want to hear repeatedly how stupid you are restrain from splashing your nonsense all over this forum.
You have no idea how much I want to hear that ;D You are free to repeat that over, and over again instead of using time to proove your SMOT theory ;) Good luck!
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 11:13:09 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 11:07:53 AM
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 11:06:31 AM
@Shruggedatlas idea is perfectly equivalent to SMOT. No doubt about that. Quite obvious, so to speak. I say "equivalent" as the type of physical manner of operation is different. Doesn't matter. @Shruggedatlas has even accounted for the tention of the cord on its way from B to C, where the tension is least right before the ball is passing point C, as the cords base is angular to the ramp right before the ramps very end at point C + the weight ofthe ball.
So @Shruggedatlas idea is perfectly analogous to SMOT.
Vidar
If you don't want to hear repeatedly how stupid you are restrain from splashing your nonsense all over this forum.
You have no idea how much I want to hear that ;D You are free to repeat that over, and over again instead of using time to proove your SMOT theory ;) Good luck!
Stop cluttering the thread with your stupidities.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 11:13:08 AM
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 11:09:55 AM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 11, 2008, 11:06:43 AM
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 10:37:51 AM
Hi,
Is the red bungee cord fixed in point X? Is the bungee cord some kind of a rubber band with a ball fixed at the other end?
Yes, this is what I meant, Low-Q. It is exactly like a rubber band.
I also don't see how in the original SMOT example, the ball spontaneously returns to B. It only returns to A. The experimenter has to lift it to B.
The rubber band idea crossed my mind while writing :).
You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A.
Vidar
Stupid people such as you should also have a way to express themselves but they should not do it unrestrained. Because you don't know your place and limits someone has to show them to you.
It's simply impossible to take you seriously. LOL ;D ;D
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 11:14:33 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 11:13:08 AM
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 11:09:55 AM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 11, 2008, 11:06:43 AM
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 10:37:51 AM
Hi,
Is the red bungee cord fixed in point X? Is the bungee cord some kind of a rubber band with a ball fixed at the other end?
Yes, this is what I meant, Low-Q. It is exactly like a rubber band.
I also don't see how in the original SMOT example, the ball spontaneously returns to B. It only returns to A. The experimenter has to lift it to B.
The rubber band idea crossed my mind while writing :).
You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A.
Vidar
Stupid people such as you should also have a way to express themselves but they should not do it unrestrained. Because you don't know your place and limits someone has to show them to you.
It's simply impossible to take you seriously. LOL ;D ;D
Keep stupid comments such as the above to yourself.
@ Shruggedatlas:
Unless your ball in your example were very heavy, it would stop at a point somewhere just below the midpoint of C and B. In the SMOT, the magnets are set up in a "V" arrangement (as you know) and you are attempting to substitute gravity for that. I suppose, if you had the correct balance between the strength of the bungee and the weight of the ball, it might be a good analogy then. I just see it stopping long before it arrives at the bottom of the ramp. Your question is not nonsense. There is no such thing as a nonsensical question, only nonsensical answers.
Bill
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 11:13:47 AM
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 11:13:09 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 11:07:53 AM
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 11:06:31 AM
@Shruggedatlas idea is perfectly equivalent to SMOT. No doubt about that. Quite obvious, so to speak. I say "equivalent" as the type of physical manner of operation is different. Doesn't matter. @Shruggedatlas has even accounted for the tention of the cord on its way from B to C, where the tension is least right before the ball is passing point C, as the cords base is angular to the ramp right before the ramps very end at point C + the weight ofthe ball.
So @Shruggedatlas idea is perfectly analogous to SMOT.
Vidar
If you don't want to hear repeatedly how stupid you are restrain from splashing your nonsense all over this forum.
You have no idea how much I want to hear that ;D You are free to repeat that over, and over again instead of using time to proove your SMOT theory ;) Good luck!
Stop cluttering the thread with your stupidities.
This will defenitly turn you on!!
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
"You're right about the SMOT. The ball does not return to point B, but point A."
Br.
Vidar
Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 11, 2008, 11:17:33 AM
@ Shruggedatlas:
Unless your ball in your example were very heavy, it would stop at a point somewhere just below the midpoint of C and B. In the SMOT, the magnets are set up in a "V" arrangement (as you know) and you are attempting to substitute gravity for that. I suppose, if you had the correct balance between the strength of the bungee and the weight of the ball, it might be a good analogy then. I just see it stopping long before it arrives at the bottom of the ramp. Your question is not nonsense. There is no such thing as a nonsensical question, only nonsensical answers.
Bill
No, it can never be a good analogy because for a good analogy the ball has to strain the string spontaneously and end up at B which isn't possible.
As it stands now, the SMOT does not end up back at B either.
Bill
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 11, 2008, 11:06:43 AM
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 10:37:51 AM
Hi,
Is the red bungee cord fixed in point X? Is the bungee cord some kind of a rubber band with a ball fixed at the other end?
Yes, this is what I meant, Low-Q. It is exactly like a rubber band.
I also don't see how in the original SMOT example, the ball spontaneously returns to B. It only returns to A. The experimenter has to lift it to B.
In the original SMOT example your B is A. Don't confuse these things.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 11:22:51 AM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 11, 2008, 11:06:43 AM
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 10:37:51 AM
Hi,
Is the red bungee cord fixed in point X? Is the bungee cord some kind of a rubber band with a ball fixed at the other end?
Yes, this is what I meant, Low-Q. It is exactly like a rubber band.
I also don't see how in the original SMOT example, the ball spontaneously returns to B. It only returns to A. The experimenter has to lift it to B.
In the original SMOT example your B is A. Don't confuse these things.
You must consider both SMOT and shruggedatlas idea in the way the ball feels force - or how the ball will behave according to the forces applied to it. Point A in a SMOT is point A in shruggedatlas idea. Point B in a SMOT is point B in shruggedatlas idea. Point C in a SMOT is point C in shruggedatlas idea.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 11:37:23 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 11:22:51 AM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 11, 2008, 11:06:43 AM
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 10:37:51 AM
Hi,
Is the red bungee cord fixed in point X? Is the bungee cord some kind of a rubber band with a ball fixed at the other end?
Yes, this is what I meant, Low-Q. It is exactly like a rubber band.
I also don't see how in the original SMOT example, the ball spontaneously returns to B. It only returns to A. The experimenter has to lift it to B.
In the original SMOT example your B is A. Don't confuse these things.
You must consider both SMOT and shruggedatlas idea in the way the ball feels force - or how the ball will behave according to the forces applied to it. Point A in a SMOT is point A in shruggedatlas idea. Point B in a SMOT is point B in shruggedatlas idea. Point C in a SMOT is point C in shruggedatlas idea.
Vidar
Don't splash your stupidity any more here.
Like I said, @shroggedatlas' example need not be discussed any further bcause it isn't analogous to SMOT. Unlike SMOT, a spring or a bungee cord, as in @shruggedatlas' example, cannot remain in an extended state spontaneously.
Omnibus, you may not like to hear it, but you're talking nonsense yourself.
first of all, don't tell people to stop confusing things in the same sentence where you do some confusing
of your own.
Shruggedatlas's drawing is NOT of a SMOT, it is of the example Shrugged gave using a ramp, a ball,
and a rubber band. Point A is exactly point A in that pic.
Your refusal to accept Shruggeds drawing as a comparable situation does not at all change that
example, and it also does not change it into a SMOT depiction if you switch A and B in Shrugged's pic.
Second of all, your aggressive reactions seem to imply a need to compensate, and in general this
tendency is recognised in either men who are very short of stature, or men who are short in the pelvic department,
but certainly not in people who know they are right and can prove it.
Since you never come up with any proof (and I mean EMPIRICAL proof, not your fantasies), you leave
very few options open here. Do you not see you are undermining yourself by reacting in this way?
Third, in the SMOT, all the ball does is roll up the ramp. If you pull it back a bit from the start of the ramp,
a sort of "magnetic spring effect" will take place, where the ball will gain some extra speed/momentum
while it is attracted toward the ramp, and that added speed may allow it to "shoot" off the ramp when
it has reaced the end of the ramp.
When you don't pull the ball back, it does not "shoot" off, it gets stuck at the end of the ramp, where
the magnetic field is a lot stronger than anywhere else.
I have tested this myself as have many others. The extra energy added by the "magnetic spring effect"
is in fact input when you pull the ball back, and it is this very energy that is needed for the ball to break free.
For the ball to return to its starting point, it first needs to break free of the magnetic attraction at the very
point where that attraction is strongest, and then it would need to roll back around to the starting point.
Once the ball is no longer attracted, yet still at nearly the same height, then it will roll back around, or at
least it can be made to do so. That's not the difficult part.
The problem is getting it unstuck. It doesn't do so by itself.
And at this point I expect you to start swearing and calling me all kinds of nasty things, as you usually do.
But that is in no way a valid reply.
You are the one claiming you can get the SMOT to loop,
why don't you PROVE IT?
Very simple: film that closed-loop SMOT of yours.
You have one, right? If not, then what are you getting so hyped up about?
And if you do, then simply post a video of your looping SMOT, and stop fighting people over it.
If you are going to react with hostility and slander again, without any proof,
then we will all be forced to conclude you are just a windbag making lots of noise
but when push comes to shove you're just full of shit.
Quote from: Koen1 on March 11, 2008, 11:58:49 AM
Omnibus, you may not like to hear it, but you're talking nonsense yourself.
first of all, don't tell people to stop confusing things in the same sentence where you do some confusing
of your own.
Shruggedatlas's drawing is NOT of a SMOT, it is of the example Shrugged gave using a ramp, a ball,
and a rubber band. Point A is exactly point A in that pic.
Your refusal to accept Shruggeds drawing as a comparable situation does not at all change that
example, and it also does not change it into a SMOT depiction if you switch A and B in Shrugged's pic.
Second of all, your aggressive reactions seem to imply a need to compensate, and in general this
tendency is recognised in either men who are very short of stature, or men who are short in the pelvic department,
but certainly not in people who know they are right and can prove it.
Since you never come up with any proof (and I mean EMPIRICAL proof, not your fantasies), you leave
very few options open here. Do you not see you are undermining yourself by reacting in this way?
Third, in the SMOT, all the ball does is roll up the ramp. If you pull it back a bit from the start of the ramp,
a sort of "magnetic spring effect" will take place, where the ball will gain some extra speed/momentum
while it is attracted toward the ramp, and that added speed may allow it to "shoot" off the ramp when
it has reaced the end of the ramp.
When you don't pull the ball back, it does not "shoot" off, it gets stuck at the end of the ramp, where
the magnetic field is a lot stronger than anywhere else.
I have tested this myself as have many others. The extra energy added by the "magnetic spring effect"
is in fact input when you pull the ball back, and it is this very energy that is needed for the ball to break free.
For the ball to return to its starting point, it first needs to break free of the magnetic attraction at the very
point where that attraction is strongest, and then it would need to roll back around to the starting point.
Once the ball is no longer attracted, yet still at nearly the same height, then it will roll back around, or at
least it can be made to do so. That's not the difficult part.
The problem is getting it unstuck. It doesn't do so by itself.
And at this point I expect you to start swearing and calling me all kinds of nasty things, as you usually do.
But that is in no way a valid reply.
You are the one claiming you can get the SMOT to loop,
why don't you PROVE IT?
Very simple: film that closed-loop SMOT of yours.
You have one, right? If not, then what are you getting so hyped up about?
And if you do, then simply post a video of your looping SMOT, and stop fighting people over it.
If you are going to react with hostility and slander again, without any proof,
then we will all be forced to conclude you are just a windbag making lots of noise
but when push comes to shove you're just full of shit.
There are more than one stupid persons here. You're one of them. Stop with this stupidity.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 12:06:22 PM
Quote from: Koen1 on March 11, 2008, 11:58:49 AM
Omnibus, you may not like to hear it, but you're talking nonsense yourself.
first of all, don't tell people to stop confusing things in the same sentence where you do some confusing
of your own.
Shruggedatlas's drawing is NOT of a SMOT, it is of the example Shrugged gave using a ramp, a ball,
and a rubber band. Point A is exactly point A in that pic.
Your refusal to accept Shruggeds drawing as a comparable situation does not at all change that
example, and it also does not change it into a SMOT depiction if you switch A and B in Shrugged's pic.
Second of all, your aggressive reactions seem to imply a need to compensate, and in general this
tendency is recognised in either men who are very short of stature, or men who are short in the pelvic department,
but certainly not in people who know they are right and can prove it.
Since you never come up with any proof (and I mean EMPIRICAL proof, not your fantasies), you leave
very few options open here. Do you not see you are undermining yourself by reacting in this way?
Third, in the SMOT, all the ball does is roll up the ramp. If you pull it back a bit from the start of the ramp,
a sort of "magnetic spring effect" will take place, where the ball will gain some extra speed/momentum
while it is attracted toward the ramp, and that added speed may allow it to "shoot" off the ramp when
it has reaced the end of the ramp.
When you don't pull the ball back, it does not "shoot" off, it gets stuck at the end of the ramp, where
the magnetic field is a lot stronger than anywhere else.
I have tested this myself as have many others. The extra energy added by the "magnetic spring effect"
is in fact input when you pull the ball back, and it is this very energy that is needed for the ball to break free.
For the ball to return to its starting point, it first needs to break free of the magnetic attraction at the very
point where that attraction is strongest, and then it would need to roll back around to the starting point.
Once the ball is no longer attracted, yet still at nearly the same height, then it will roll back around, or at
least it can be made to do so. That's not the difficult part.
The problem is getting it unstuck. It doesn't do so by itself.
And at this point I expect you to start swearing and calling me all kinds of nasty things, as you usually do.
But that is in no way a valid reply.
You are the one claiming you can get the SMOT to loop,
why don't you PROVE IT?
Very simple: film that closed-loop SMOT of yours.
You have one, right? If not, then what are you getting so hyped up about?
And if you do, then simply post a video of your looping SMOT, and stop fighting people over it.
If you are going to react with hostility and slander again, without any proof,
then we will all be forced to conclude you are just a windbag making lots of noise
but when push comes to shove you're just full of shit.
There are more than one stupid persons here. You're one of them. Stop with this stupidity.
"There are more than one stupid persons..."?
Looks like you're one of them. Omnibus...for the love of all things sane...shut your mouth you delusional prick. I really think you are one of the MIB guys...all you do is detract from the topics and insult people while making yourself into the dumbass of the year nominee. Nobody cares about you so jump off a bridge you worthless bastard. Go to hell. Go direct traffic in the middle of a highway. Go see what gunsmoke tastes like. Just take the ol razor blade sliding board into a salty ocean. Go find a girlfriend. Go get a life. Go get a car. Go get your backhair waxed. Go get a job. Quit smoking crack. Do something you loser.
Quote from: konduct on March 11, 2008, 04:11:41 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 12:06:22 PM
Quote from: Koen1 on March 11, 2008, 11:58:49 AM
Omnibus, you may not like to hear it, but you're talking nonsense yourself.
first of all, don't tell people to stop confusing things in the same sentence where you do some confusing
of your own.
Shruggedatlas's drawing is NOT of a SMOT, it is of the example Shrugged gave using a ramp, a ball,
and a rubber band. Point A is exactly point A in that pic.
Your refusal to accept Shruggeds drawing as a comparable situation does not at all change that
example, and it also does not change it into a SMOT depiction if you switch A and B in Shrugged's pic.
Second of all, your aggressive reactions seem to imply a need to compensate, and in general this
tendency is recognised in either men who are very short of stature, or men who are short in the pelvic department,
but certainly not in people who know they are right and can prove it.
Since you never come up with any proof (and I mean EMPIRICAL proof, not your fantasies), you leave
very few options open here. Do you not see you are undermining yourself by reacting in this way?
Third, in the SMOT, all the ball does is roll up the ramp. If you pull it back a bit from the start of the ramp,
a sort of "magnetic spring effect" will take place, where the ball will gain some extra speed/momentum
while it is attracted toward the ramp, and that added speed may allow it to "shoot" off the ramp when
it has reaced the end of the ramp.
When you don't pull the ball back, it does not "shoot" off, it gets stuck at the end of the ramp, where
the magnetic field is a lot stronger than anywhere else.
I have tested this myself as have many others. The extra energy added by the "magnetic spring effect"
is in fact input when you pull the ball back, and it is this very energy that is needed for the ball to break free.
For the ball to return to its starting point, it first needs to break free of the magnetic attraction at the very
point where that attraction is strongest, and then it would need to roll back around to the starting point.
Once the ball is no longer attracted, yet still at nearly the same height, then it will roll back around, or at
least it can be made to do so. That's not the difficult part.
The problem is getting it unstuck. It doesn't do so by itself.
And at this point I expect you to start swearing and calling me all kinds of nasty things, as you usually do.
But that is in no way a valid reply.
You are the one claiming you can get the SMOT to loop,
why don't you PROVE IT?
Very simple: film that closed-loop SMOT of yours.
You have one, right? If not, then what are you getting so hyped up about?
And if you do, then simply post a video of your looping SMOT, and stop fighting people over it.
If you are going to react with hostility and slander again, without any proof,
then we will all be forced to conclude you are just a windbag making lots of noise
but when push comes to shove you're just full of shit.
There are more than one stupid persons here. You're one of them. Stop with this stupidity.
"There are more than one stupid persons..."?
Looks like you're one of them. Omnibus...for the love of all things sane...shut your mouth you delusional prick. I really think you are one of the MIB guys...all you do is detract from the topics and insult people while making yourself into the dumbass of the year nominee. Nobody cares about you so jump off a bridge you worthless bastard. Go to hell. Go direct traffic in the middle of a highway. Go see what gunsmoke tastes like. Just take the ol razor blade sliding board into a salty ocean. Go find a girlfriend. Go get a life. Go get a car. Go get your backhair waxed. Go get a job. Quit smoking crack. Do something you loser.
No, you're one of the stupid people. In addition, you're a potty mouthed swine. Shut up.
Yes, thats right, ShruggedAtlas' example is analogous to the smot. In both cases the ball returns to A and has to be supplied with external energy to rereach point B.
Yes, well, I'm glad we all agree on that.
Quote from: acp on March 11, 2008, 04:49:24 PM
Yes, thats right, ShruggedAtlas' example is analogous to the smot. In both cases the ball returns to A and has to be supplied with external energy to rereach point B.
Yes, well, I'm glad we all agree on that.
Not all agree on that. Only stupid people would agree on such a stupid thing.
Well, thats that sorted out then.....
Quote from: acp on March 11, 2008, 05:06:36 PM
Well, thats that sorted out then.....
Not now. It has been sorted out long ago. A spring cannot spontaneously stay in a strained position. When let go after being strained it always relaxes back to its normal state. Not so in SMOT.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 05:09:26 PM
Quote from: acp on March 11, 2008, 05:06:36 PM
Well, thats that sorted out then.....
Not now. It has been sorted out long ago. A spring cannot spontaneously stay in a strained position. When let go after being strained it always relaxes back to its normal state. Not so in SMOT.
I've never seen anything to prove that claim.
By the way, How do you like my dancing? That's me on the left of the pic.
Quote from: acp on March 11, 2008, 05:11:57 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 05:09:26 PM
Quote from: acp on March 11, 2008, 05:06:36 PM
Well, thats that sorted out then.....
Not now. It has been sorted out long ago. A spring cannot spontaneously stay in a strained position. When let go after being strained it always relaxes back to its normal state. Not so in SMOT.
I've never seen anything to prove that claim.
That's your problem. Why do you think anyone should care what problems you have?
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 05:14:36 PM
Quote from: acp on March 11, 2008, 05:11:57 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 05:09:26 PM
Quote from: acp on March 11, 2008, 05:06:36 PM
Well, thats that sorted out then.....
Not now. It has been sorted out long ago. A spring cannot spontaneously stay in a strained position. When let go after being strained it always relaxes back to its normal state. Not so in SMOT.
I've never seen anything to prove that claim.
That's your problem. Why do you think anyone should care what problems you have?
Did I make a claim that I thought anybody should care what problems I have?
I practiced a long time for the dancing ;) Hope you like it ;)
Quote from: acp on March 11, 2008, 05:17:11 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 05:14:36 PM
Quote from: acp on March 11, 2008, 05:11:57 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 05:09:26 PM
Quote from: acp on March 11, 2008, 05:06:36 PM
Well, thats that sorted out then.....
Not now. It has been sorted out long ago. A spring cannot spontaneously stay in a strained position. When let go after being strained it always relaxes back to its normal state. Not so in SMOT.
I've never seen anything to prove that claim.
That's your problem. Why do you think anyone should care what problems you have?
Did I make a claim that I thought anybody should care what problems I have?
I practiced a long time for the dancing ;) Hope you like it ;)
Writing about it implies it. Restrain from posting stuff which contributes nothing to the discussion and only exposes your confusion.
I don't know how, but omnibus has charmed the admin. May god have mercy on this sociopath...
I have to admitt omnibus, i'm very confused. Confused with your behaviour and how the admin can stomach it. I know whatever I say you will twist into something that makes me look bad, but at least the people who read this post will know how to identify you.
Goodbye sociopath...
(most likely response) "Stop cluttering the thread with your nonsense" lol...
Pitty that Vote thread is closed.... 9 of 11 voted him out. A quick guess that hartiberlin and omnibus wants him to stay... ;D
Enough cluttering and stupid nonsense.
Hartiberlin and omnibus are WRONG about the SMOT claims. End of story. I have explained why. It is time to proove me wrong. A quick guess that omnibus will reply with somthing like this:
"Stop cluttering this thread with nonsense", and no proof of a working SMOT - AGAIN!!!
LOL ;D ;D
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 07:11:00 PM
Pitty that Vote thread is closed.... 9 of 11 voted him out. A quick guess that hartiberlin and omnibus wants him to stay... ;D
Enough cluttering and stupid nonsense.
Hartiberlin and omnibus are WRONG about the SMOT claims. End of story. I have explained why. It is time to proove me wrong. A quick guess that omnibus will reply with somthing like this:
"Stop cluttering this thread with nonsense", and no proof of a working SMOT - AGAIN!!!
LOL ;D ;D
I know man. The right thing can be so obvious sometimes, but this is a private thread so theres nothing we can do. And don't forget, omnibutt, sry, omnibus, has rights too... :D
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 11, 2008, 07:02:28 PM
I don't know how, but omnibus has charmed the admin. May god have mercy on this sociopath...
I have to admitt omnibus, i'm very confused. Confused with your behaviour and how the admin can stomach it. I know whatever I say you will twist into something that makes me look bad, but at least the people who read this post will know how to identify you.
Goodbye sociopath...
(most likely response) "Stop cluttering the thread with your nonsense" lol...
Dont you see it. Omnibus is a retard, being taking care of by his trustee - hartiberlin. So stop cluttering this thread with nonsense. If you do not agree with me, I will be very mad at you, and call you names, and telling you how stupid you are.
;D LOL
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 11, 2008, 07:02:28 PM
I don't know how, but omnibus has charmed the admin. May god have mercy on this sociopath...
I have to admitt omnibus, i'm very confused. Confused with your behaviour and how the admin can stomach it. I know whatever I say you will twist into something that makes me look bad, but at least the people who read this post will know how to identify you.
Goodbye sociopath...
(most likely response) "Stop cluttering the thread with your nonsense" lol...
On the contrary, you are confused. You have nothing of substance to say and are only wasting bandwidth.
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 07:11:00 PM
Pitty that Vote thread is closed.... 9 of 11 voted him out. A quick guess that hartiberlin and omnibus wants him to stay... ;D
Enough cluttering and stupid nonsense.
Hartiberlin and omnibus are WRONG about the SMOT claims. End of story. I have explained why. It is time to proove me wrong. A quick guess that omnibus will reply with somthing like this:
"Stop cluttering this thread with nonsense", and no proof of a working SMOT - AGAIN!!!
LOL ;D ;D
No, you are wrong about the SMOT. You are wrong because, as it was established, you don't know elementary physics and your desire to express messed up opinions is the greater the less you know about the subject. Go figure.
Omni there are three SOLID pages of wasted bandwidth in your posts alone its like a ping pong match Im getting dizzy it doesn't look good Chet
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 08:27:23 PM
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 07:11:00 PM
Pitty that Vote thread is closed.... 9 of 11 voted him out. A quick guess that hartiberlin and omnibus wants him to stay... ;D
Enough cluttering and stupid nonsense.
Hartiberlin and omnibus are WRONG about the SMOT claims. End of story. I have explained why. It is time to proove me wrong. A quick guess that omnibus will reply with somthing like this:
"Stop cluttering this thread with nonsense", and no proof of a working SMOT - AGAIN!!!
LOL ;D ;D
No, you are wrong about the SMOT. You are wrong because, as it was established, you don't know elementary physics and your desire to express messed up opinions is the greater the less you know about the subject. Go figure.
Stop cluttering the thread with your nonsense.
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 11, 2008, 08:34:54 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 08:27:23 PM
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 07:11:00 PM
Pitty that Vote thread is closed.... 9 of 11 voted him out. A quick guess that hartiberlin and omnibus wants him to stay... ;D
Enough cluttering and stupid nonsense.
Hartiberlin and omnibus are WRONG about the SMOT claims. End of story. I have explained why. It is time to proove me wrong. A quick guess that omnibus will reply with somthing like this:
"Stop cluttering this thread with nonsense", and no proof of a working SMOT - AGAIN!!!
LOL ;D ;D
No, you are wrong about the SMOT. You are wrong because, as it was established, you don't know elementary physics and your desire to express messed up opinions is the greater the less you know about the subject. Go figure.
Stop cluttering the thread with your nonsense.
You stop cluttering the thread. You are the one spewing nonsense. You have no shame.
Quote from: ramset on March 11, 2008, 08:31:32 PM
Omni there are three SOLID pages of wasted bandwidth in your posts alone its like a ping pong match Im getting dizzy it doesn't look good Chet
This post is a wasted bandwidth. What nerve you have to impudently blabber sheer nonsense. What nerve.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 08:37:36 PM
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 11, 2008, 08:34:54 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 08:27:23 PM
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 07:11:00 PM
Pitty that Vote thread is closed.... 9 of 11 voted him out. A quick guess that hartiberlin and omnibus wants him to stay... ;D
Enough cluttering and stupid nonsense.
Hartiberlin and omnibus are WRONG about the SMOT claims. End of story. I have explained why. It is time to proove me wrong. A quick guess that omnibus will reply with somthing like this:
"Stop cluttering this thread with nonsense", and no proof of a working SMOT - AGAIN!!!
LOL ;D ;D
No, you are wrong about the SMOT. You are wrong because, as it was established, you don't know elementary physics and your desire to express messed up opinions is the greater the less you know about the subject. Go figure.
Stop cluttering the thread with your nonsense.
You stop cluttering the thread. You are the one spewing nonsense. You have no shame.
"Stop cluttering the thread with your nonsense." can be twisted to mean "You stop cluttering the thread. You are the one spewing nonsense. You have no shame."
I guess omnibus does violate CoE...
I guess I got bored with being mature, so I decided to go to your level of "forum combat".
Observing all of your posts, you don't have much creativity besides copy and paste.
It's typical for mediocrities to unite. The greater the mediocrity the greater the tendency to seek matching souls. A mediocrity can never stand to be put in place and thinks it can win by numbers and by flooding the conversation. Go ahead, show who you really are.
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 11, 2008, 08:42:37 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 08:37:36 PM
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 11, 2008, 08:34:54 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 08:27:23 PM
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2008, 07:11:00 PM
Pitty that Vote thread is closed.... 9 of 11 voted him out. A quick guess that hartiberlin and omnibus wants him to stay... ;D
Enough cluttering and stupid nonsense.
Hartiberlin and omnibus are WRONG about the SMOT claims. End of story. I have explained why. It is time to proove me wrong. A quick guess that omnibus will reply with somthing like this:
"Stop cluttering this thread with nonsense", and no proof of a working SMOT - AGAIN!!!
LOL ;D ;D
No, you are wrong about the SMOT. You are wrong because, as it was established, you don't know elementary physics and your desire to express messed up opinions is the greater the less you know about the subject. Go figure.
Stop cluttering the thread with your nonsense.
You stop cluttering the thread. You are the one spewing nonsense. You have no shame.
"Stop cluttering the thread with your nonsense." can be twisted to mean "You stop cluttering the thread. You are the one spewing nonsense. You have no shame."
I guess omnibus does violate CoE...
I guess I got bored with being mature, so I decided to go to your level of "forum combat".
Observing all of your posts, you don't have much creativity besides copy and paste.
Stop cluttering the thread with your nonsense.
I am disappointed that Stephan locked the other topic. That is all I will say.
Bill
I apologize Omni its frustrating for me to see such bright men stalled in this way yourself included I won't be posting here any more Im not qualified Chet
Quote from: ramset on March 11, 2008, 08:48:40 PM
I apologize Omni its frustrating for me to see such bright men stalled in this way yourself included I won't be posting here any more Im not qualified Chet
Good. Many should follow your example and should restrain from posting when not qualified. Participation in a discussion doesn't always require posting. One can just read and try to learn without bothering others with his or her confusion.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 08:43:09 PM
It's typical for mediocrities to unite. The greater the mediocrity the greater the tendency to seek matching souls. A mediocrity can never stand to be put in place and thinks it can win by numbers and by flooding the conversation. Go ahead, show who you really are.
Ok, I'm a 17 year old with aspergers. I'm a visual thinker, who can become absent minded. My problems are considered mild, as I am intelligent enough to make up for my lack of social skills. The sociopath is the polar difference. Unlike a sociopath, i'm guided by logic and wish to better my relationships. I have a thirst for knowledge. I have a passion for programming and energy research. I used to have a passion for psychology (which led me to my own disorder), and know that you have problems too. I have decided that you either are a sociopath; or you also have aspergers, but your social skills have become so poor that you appear to miss read my wanting for you to end your flame wars in the magnet motors section. If you understand now, please end the flame wars.
WELL thats something I know about a young man with wisdom beyond his years and some good insite YOU MAKE ME PROUD HOPE FOR HUMANITY THANX Chet
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 11, 2008, 08:55:29 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 08:43:09 PM
It's typical for mediocrities to unite. The greater the mediocrity the greater the tendency to seek matching souls. A mediocrity can never stand to be put in place and thinks it can win by numbers and by flooding the conversation. Go ahead, show who you really are.
Ok, I'm a 17 year old with aspergers. I'm a visual thinker, who can become absent minded. My problems are considered mild, as I am intelligent enough to make up for my lack of social skills. The sociopath is the polar difference. Unlike a sociopath, i'm guided by logic and wish to better my relationships. I have a thirst for knowledge. I have a passion for programming and energy research. I used to have a passion for psychology (which led me to my own disorder), and know that you have problems too. I have decided that you either are a sociopath; or you also have aspergers, but your social skills have become so poor that you appear to miss read my wanting for you to end your flame wars in the magnet motors section. If you understand now, please end the flame wars.
I hope there's hope Hope4Humanity...I think he is beyond social skill problems...he really thinks he's God, Einstein, and Elvis.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 11, 2008, 08:45:38 PM
I am disappointed that Stephan locked the other topic. That is all I will say.
Bill
You and me both brother. I've asked Stefan why he defends behavior with a belief in a totally unrelated theory. Believing the Earth is round doesn't give you right to persecute everyone on it. I may or may not get a response.
@ konduct:
Yes, I know that Stefan believes in the SMOT as showing OU. That's fine as far as it goes. That does not excuse the abuse everyone takes when they ask legitimate questions as to why this is. I agree that the earth is round, I do not, nor should not, abuse you if you ask me why I believe this and where is the evidence. That is the difference here.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 11, 2008, 09:28:08 PM
@ konduct:
Yes, I know that Stefan believes in the SMOT as showing OU. That's fine as far as it goes. That does not excuse the abuse everyone takes when they ask legitimate questions as to why this is. I agree that the earth is round, I do not, nor should not, abuse you if you ask me why I believe this and where is the evidence. That is the difference here.
Bill
The one that's really abusive is @konduct. You're either blind or very gullible.
As for the questions, there's nothing more offensive in a scientific discourse to ignore opponent's arguments while impudently pushing one's confusion. You should be aware of that. A scientific discussion isn't a charitable undertaking for feeble minded neither is it a playground to blabber what you please and then complain when you're told off. I'm not even mentioning those who deliberately want to destroy a controversial discussion with the aim to please their employers and who knows who else (recall @alsetalokin when mentioning employers).
@ Omnibus:
Agreed.
Bill
I agree that the magnet and the spring are fundamentally different, in that the spring exerts a greater force the farther the ball is away, while a magnet does the opposite, however I am not convinced that this difference is enough to matter in the example of the SMOT.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 10:06:31 PM
As for the questions, there's nothing more offensive in a scientific discourse to ignore opponent's arguments while impudently pushing one's confusion.
Exactly.
So SHOW US YOUR EMPIRICAL PROOF!
And don't try to dismiss this with another "you are stupid" remark,
because as you say yourself:
QuoteA scientific discussion isn't a charitable undertaking for feeble minded neither is it a playground to blabber what you please and then complain when you're told off.
Indeed, a scientific discussion is not a place to blabber what you please.
A scientific discussion involves analysing and discussing theory and EMPIRICAL DATA that supports the theory.
You still have not shown any empirical data that supports your claim that the SMOT will loop.
Stop telling people they're stupid, and stop sticking feathers up your butt for being (in your own opinion) the great
wise knowitall.
That has no place in a scientific discussion!
There is no reason to act like that.
If you have evidence, empirical proof that you can indeed get the SMOT to loop,
then present it here. Post your videos of your looping SMOT.
We will be convinced, the nay-sayers will shut up, and you will not have to tell anyone how
stupid they are because you will simply have proven your claim.
And then we will all thank you for showing us a real over unity device.
It's that simple.
Your current conduct seems to be in contradiction with your statement that such
childish behaviour has no place in a scientific discussion.
You do realise that, do you not?
If you're going to react with another "you are stupid, poopoohead" style childish reply,
then you will prove yourself incapable of actually conducting a normal (let alone
scientific) discussion, and in fact will prove yourself to be childish and blabbering,
or at least will prove yourself not to practise what you preach.
Oh, and that will be empirical proof then, by the way.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 10:06:31 PM
Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 11, 2008, 09:28:08 PM
@ konduct:
Yes, I know that Stefan believes in the SMOT as showing OU. That's fine as far as it goes. That does not excuse the abuse everyone takes when they ask legitimate questions as to why this is. I agree that the earth is round, I do not, nor should not, abuse you if you ask me why I believe this and where is the evidence. That is the difference here.
Bill
The one that's really abusive is @konduct. You're either blind or very gullible.
As for the questions, there's nothing more offensive in a scientific discourse to ignore opponent's arguments while impudently pushing one's confusion. You should be aware of that. A scientific discussion isn't a charitable undertaking for feeble minded neither is it a playground to blabber what you please and then complain when you're told off. I'm not even mentioning those who deliberately want to destroy a controversial discussion with the aim to please their employers and who knows who else (recall @alsetalokin when mentioning employers).
Isn't this abusive? I guess we all have to accept that you are sitting at hartiberlins right side, and legitimate your own abusing talk while banning others.
There is in fact many bright brains here - the ones that questions SMOT, and OU in general, and are not buying explanations without roots in real life
- just by that.
You have to accept that someone disagree with you, and their rights to express whatever they want - blabber or not.I think honestly that you are not an example for succession. Probably not me too - and many others with me. The point is that we all should be allowed to question each other, without someone shoots our head off. That is old fashion politics which died 100 years ago in the civilized world. They still use this politics somewhere in the world - killing people which don't agree - right here at overunity.com where you has just taken the ruler position, shooting people down just because of lack of knowledge, or having superior knowledge, far beyond your own, that is questioning your opinions and theoretical "findings".
Vidar
Omnibus will never be banned because he is an "Elite Member" . IIRC these are people who pay a monthly fee to be rid of the numerous advertisements on this site .
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 11, 2008, 10:56:31 PM
I agree that the magnet and the spring are fundamentally different, in that the spring exerts a greater force the farther the ball is away, while a magnet does the opposite, however I am not convinced that this difference is enough to matter in the example of the SMOT.
That's not the difference it is had in mind when a spring is compared to SMOT. The fundamental difference that is had in mind is that the spring cannot strain itself spontaneously and therefore it does not violate CoE while SMOT can and thus it violates CoE.
Omnibus,,, you dont half make me laugh.... :D
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 05:09:26 PM
Not now. It has been sorted out long ago. A spring cannot spontaneously stay in a strained position. When let go after being strained it always relaxes back to its normal state. Not so in SMOT.
I agree on the bit about the rubber band wanting to relax back to normal state. My question is, why does it matter? Let's say we never allow the rubber band to relax. Then, it becomes no different from a magnet. Examine the scenario below, where we add a green bar to stop the ball from retracting back to X.
So what happens is the ball starts at A, pulled against the green bar. Then,as before, experimenter places the ball at B, lets go, the ball spontaneously moves to C, falls of the rails and returns to A.
I do not see any difference between this concept and your smot.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 12, 2008, 02:02:09 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2008, 05:09:26 PM
Not now. It has been sorted out long ago. A spring cannot spontaneously stay in a strained position. When let go after being strained it always relaxes back to its normal state. Not so in SMOT.
I agree on the bit about the rubber band wanting to relax back to normal state. My question is, why does it matter? Let's say we never allow the rubber band to relax. Then, it becomes no different from a magnet. Examine the scenario below, where we add a green bar to stop the ball from retracting back to X.
So what happens is the ball starts at A, pulled against the green bar. Then,as before, experimenter places the ball at B, lets go, the ball spontaneously moves to C, falls of the rails and returns to A.
I do not see any difference between this concept and your smot.
I said that and I'll repeat it. Your experiment would be analogous to SMOT if, after the ball goes up the ramp in your experiment, it goes through C and A in your experiment and then spontaneously returns at B in your experiment. In your experiment the ball can never return spontaneously at B, however. Therefore, it is not analogous to SMOT. In SMOT, on the contrary, the ball returns spontaneously at what you have marked as B (in SMOT your B is denoted with another letter, namely A).
This may not seem significant to you but in fact it is quite significant. In SMOT for the first time ever a possibility is shown to have spontaneous acquiring of energy (straining) instead of spontaneously spending it (relaxing). Another analogy to that would be to see water spontaneously running uphill. This you'll never see in the case of water but in the case of a ball in SMOT it is exactly what is seen and that's quite significant.
Notice carefully, in SMOT the greatest strain is at what is marked there as point A (in your experiment this is point B). Point A in SMOT (that is, your point B) is where the experiment begins and spontaneously ends in SMOT. In your case the experiment begins at your point B but does not end spontaneously there. Hope now you can see the difference and that it's a substantial difference.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 12, 2008, 02:27:31 PM
Notice carefully, in SMOT the greatest strain is at what is marked there as point A (in your experiment this is point B). Point A in SMOT (that is, your point B) is where the experiment begins and spontaneously ends in SMOT. In your case the experiment begins at your point B but does not end spontaneously there. Hope now you can see the difference and that it's a substantial difference.
Maybe you are confused by the fact that B is lower than A, or where the ball position is. Please do not put so much emphasis on this. I know you are a smart person, so I think you can picture it the way I meant it.
Between our two experiments, A is A, B is B, C is C. I can put the ball at A in the drawing if it helps matters. I simply put it at B, because that is where the action is, so I thought it would be more illustrative, but I think in restrospect it was slightly confusing. Surely you can picture my experiment, where the ball starts at A, is moved by hand to the ramp at B, accelerates to C, falls off and returns spontaneously to A?
Quote from: acp on March 12, 2008, 06:57:16 AM
Omnibus will never be banned because he is an "Elite Member" . IIRC these are people who pay a monthly fee to be rid of the numerous advertisements on this site .
Lol so it's not that Stefan blelieves or supports Omnibus's abusive behaviour,
but rather a matter of Omnibus paying Stefan to be allowed to abuse people here?
Rofl ;D
Well that seems to imply we can quite safely ignore everything Omnibus
says untill he finally posts some proof. He is not here because he has a great idea
or because his posts contribute to the forum, he is here because his money
contributes to the forum and that gives him the idea that he has some form of authority.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 12, 2008, 02:47:28 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 12, 2008, 02:27:31 PM
Notice carefully, in SMOT the greatest strain is at what is marked there as point A (in your experiment this is point B). Point A in SMOT (that is, your point B) is where the experiment begins and spontaneously ends in SMOT. In your case the experiment begins at your point B but does not end spontaneously there. Hope now you can see the difference and that it's a substantial difference.
Maybe you are confused by the fact that B is lower than A, or where the ball position is. Please do not put so much emphasis on this. I know you are a smart person, so I think you can picture it the way I meant it.
Between our two experiments, A is A, B is B, C is C. I can put the ball at A in the drawing if it helps matters. I simply put it at B, because that is where the action is, so I thought it would be more illustrative, but I think in restrospect it was slightly confusing. Surely you can picture my experiment, where the ball starts at A, is moved by hand to the ramp at B, accelerates to C, falls off and returns spontaneously to A?
Not so. The ball at B in your experiment is at the greatest strain because it at the greatest distance from the pivot X than if it were at A. Thus, like I said, your point B (the beginning but not the spontaneous end of your experiment) is called point A (the beginning and spontaneous end of experiment) in SMOT.
Your experiment need not be discussed any further because it is trivial and is in no way an analogue of SMOT.
Bad Omnibus Bad REmember those social skills
@Omnibus:
you keep repeating that in the SMOT the ball returns to its
starting position automatically.
Well, the very basic SMOT consisting of a ramp with magnets on it
and a steel ball DOES NOT RETUN THE BALL TO ITS STARTING POSITION.
If you claim to have one that does, then POST YOUR PROOF.
Pictures or videos, doesn't matter, but show us this SMOT that returns its ball
to the starting point!
Because there are NO versions of the SMOT to be found ANYWHERE on the
Internet that show it returning to its starting point.
Yours would be the first.
Why don't you show it?
Oh, right, it's so obvious.
It must be because you simply don't have one. You do not have a looped SMOT,
you do not have one that returns the ball to the starting point. Liar.
Prove me wrong. Show us your SMOT.
It's either that, or you have some weird scary disability like Tseung, who
can also solve all the world problems and make an over unity device all in
his fantasies, but when asked for proof he can all of a sudden not use
a simple drill, bellow pump, or video camera. You're not related to him, are you?
Quote from: Omnibus on March 12, 2008, 02:55:31 PM
Not so. The ball at B in your experiment is at the greatest strain because it at the greatest distance from the pivot X than if it were at A. Thus, like I said, your point B (the beginning but not the spontaneous end of your experiment) is called point A (the beginning and spontaneous end of experiment) in SMOT.
Your experiment need not be discussed any further because it is trivial and is in no way an analogue of SMOT.
I am confused. At point A in the SMOT experiment, the strain from the magnet is lowest, because it is fartherst away from the magnet, and in my experiment, at point A, the rubber band has the least strain on the ball, because the ball is closest to the pivot X. So I cannot see what you are talking about. A is A.
All that aside, why does it even matter where strain is stronger or weaker? The bottom line is there are two conservative fields involved and overlaid, resulting in the ball moving under the influence of the two fields in an A-B-C-A "closed loop". A mechanical advantage, the ramp, temporarily assists one of the conservative fields to overcome the other.
I bet if you used your equations on my example, you would also see violation of CoE.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 12, 2008, 02:27:31 PM
Notice carefully, in SMOT the greatest strain is at what is marked there as point A (in your experiment this is point B). Point A in SMOT (that is, your point B) is where the experiment begins and spontaneously ends in SMOT. In your case the experiment begins at your point B but does not end spontaneously there. Hope now you can see the difference and that it's a substantial difference.
I don't follow you when you say that point A in a SMOT is where the experiment begins, but you have to manually impart energy to tha ball to make it through point B in SMOT, right? Point A is however where the experiment ends. So I can see similarities between shruggedatlas model and SMOT. Anyone sharing this view?
Vidar
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 12, 2008, 03:32:30 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 12, 2008, 02:55:31 PM
Not so. The ball at B in your experiment is at the greatest strain because it at the greatest distance from the pivot X than if it were at A. Thus, like I said, your point B (the beginning but not the spontaneous end of your experiment) is called point A (the beginning and spontaneous end of experiment) in SMOT.
Your experiment need not be discussed any further because it is trivial and is in no way an analogue of SMOT.
I am confused. At point A in the SMOT experiment, the strain from the magnet is lowest, because it is fartherst away from the magnet, and in my experiment, at point A, the rubber band has the least strain on the ball, because the ball is closest to the pivot X. So I cannot see what you are talking about. A is A.
All that aside, why does it even matter where strain is stronger or weaker? The bottom line is there are two conservative fields involved and overlaid, resulting in the ball moving under the influence of the two fields in an A-B-C-A "closed loop". A mechanical advantage, the ramp, temporarily assists one of the conservative fields to overcome the other.
I bet if you used your equations on my example, you would also see violation of CoE.
In your model, the force toward C from B, is greatest at point B. Then gradually decrease towards C. The ball is in proportion to X running downhill while going from B to C while the strain between the ball and X is also decreasing. In a SMOT the magnetic field is most dense right before point C, and the ball is as an equivalent to your model, running downhill too - even if the magnets is geographical fixed as uphill. The difference is that the "strain" in a SMOT is greatest at point C, but still a point where we could place the ball and the ball would not do anything but going to rest.
When the ball pass C in a SMOT it will fall down towards A. The forces acting on the ball, magnetical and gravitational, will not give the ball the same acceleration pattern compared to your model
There is many similarities, but the forces acting on the ball is quite different, and even opposite, but I believe in general, your model and a SMOT will act fairly similar if you only focus on the balls behaviour.
Vidar
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 12, 2008, 03:32:30 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 12, 2008, 02:55:31 PM
Not so. The ball at B in your experiment is at the greatest strain because it at the greatest distance from the pivot X than if it were at A. Thus, like I said, your point B (the beginning but not the spontaneous end of your experiment) is called point A (the beginning and spontaneous end of experiment) in SMOT.
Your experiment need not be discussed any further because it is trivial and is in no way an analogue of SMOT.
I am confused. At point A in the SMOT experiment, the strain from the magnet is lowest, because it is fartherst away from the magnet, and in my experiment, at point A, the rubber band has the least strain on the ball, because the ball is closest to the pivot X. So I cannot see what you are talking about. A is A.
All that aside, why does it even matter where strain is stronger or weaker? The bottom line is there are two conservative fields involved and overlaid, resulting in the ball moving under the influence of the two fields in an A-B-C-A "closed loop". A mechanical advantage, the ramp, temporarily assists one of the conservative fields to overcome the other.
I bet if you used your equations on my example, you would also see violation of CoE.
Of course, you are confused and that is from the very start because you refuse to understand that despite the fact that the ball at A in SMOT is the farthest from the magnet, at A in SMOT the ball has the greatest magnetic potential energy. I explained this especially for you several times but it somehow doesn't sink. This is a common mistake people make but I explained why this is so thoroughly and I thought by now you should know that elementary fact. At A in SMOT the force of the magnetic field is the weakest but the magnetic potential energy is the greatest. Never confuse force with energy. Never.
Also, not all superpositions of conservative fields yield the results we observe in SMOT. In your example the ball cannot even spontaneous;y close the loop B-C-A-B which (with the proper substitution of the letters) is observed to happen in SMOT.
Thus, your bet that using the equation I applied in SMOT will prove violation of CoE also in your example is a losing bet.
Again, your example is trivial, it doesn't violate CoE and need not be discussed any further.
Quote from: Koen1 on March 12, 2008, 02:55:07 PM
Quote from: acp on March 12, 2008, 06:57:16 AM
Omnibus will never be banned because he is an "Elite Member" . IIRC these are people who pay a monthly fee to be rid of the numerous advertisements on this site .
Lol so it's not that Stefan blelieves or supports Omnibus's abusive behaviour,
but rather a matter of Omnibus paying Stefan to be allowed to abuse people here?
Rofl ;D
Well that seems to imply we can quite safely ignore everything Omnibus
says untill he finally posts some proof. He is not here because he has a great idea
or because his posts contribute to the forum, he is here because his money
contributes to the forum and that gives him the idea that he has some form of authority.
Fucking amazing...Stefan better ban me then cause I'm about to start a shitstorm in here. Fuck you and your moral stature Stefan. This is about like Hostel II where people pay good money to torture other people to death. Sick bastard. This is the biggest bunch of bullshit...so sick of these comments...I wish I could just whoop Omnibus's ass and be done with it...miss the good ol days.
We should at least have the ability to block his comments from our browser while we're viewing the forum. Like a mute button.
I hear the keys jingling you should definately count to ten or put up a punching bag next to the computer around this thread you'd be in shape in no time Chet
The idea of a mute button or the invisible man [for a while] might save a few from having strokes
Omnibus,
It does not matter whether there is overunity or not. It only matters if you can use it. Your smot is a worthless verification of temporary useless ou. JUST LIKE A VIRTUAL PARTICLE. These people, including me, want to see your device make use of the ou. A closed loop. And as I read the definition of closed loop, it always agrees on the fact that the object or system returns to it's physical starting place, where it can begin again WITHOUT USER INTERVENTION. In programming this is a childish concept, everybody understands.
while(SMOT_ENERGY > 1)
{
SMOT_ENERGY++;
}
This is an extremely simple concept using code. I've learned it in multiple languages, you just have to use it in english... ::)
Quote from: ramset on March 12, 2008, 06:57:06 PM
I hear the keys jingling you should definately count to ten or put up a punching bag next to the computer around this thread you'd be in shape in no time Chet
lol...right...what's keys jingling mean? :)
Oh just a little brevity I Imagine Stephan bringing the lock
OK, Omnibus, I see the error of my ways, and I admit it! Indeed, the potential energy of the rubber band is lowest at my point A. I have made a new drawing. Is the example below analagous to the SMOT?
What we have is a relatively weak rubber band. The position shown is at point A, where the ball is dragged quite low by gravity. Then, the experimenter lifts the ball by hand to point B. Here, the incline is very slight, enough to allow the rubber band to pull the ball toward C, where it falls off and returns to A.
Make the following assumptions, in case the drawing is not clear enough.
1. The rubber band never relaxes, so it always applies a force.
2. A is farther from X than B is from X, so the greatest potential energy of the rubber band is at A.
Thanks.
@shruggedatlas,
This is another hypothetical device which isn?t an analog of SMOT. It would be if it really works the way you describe it. But it doesn?t. The main reason is the difference between the properties of a strained bungee cord and a magnetic field ? spring force Hooke?s law vs. inverse cube law of the magnetic field.
To convince yourself that it won?t work as you expect it, lift the ball vertically at a position flush with B. Then let the ball go. Which way is it going to move? Is it not true that no matter at what position above A you lift the ball vertically it will always fall back at A (in accordance with CoE)? Not so in the case of SMOT. While lifting the ball in SMOT vertically somewhere in the neighborhood of A, the ball will return back at A, however, lifting it higher will reverse direction and the ball will move towards the magnet X, correct?
Thus, in your case, when lifting the ball from A to B (at a height h1) gravitational potential energy mgh1 (minus a slight amount of energy from the bungee cord) will be imparted to it. Then, when let go, the ball will return back to A directly, not through C, thus losing the same amount of gravitational potential energy mgh1 entirely in accordance with CoE.
The picture will be different in SMOT but you know it and I won?t repeat it here.
The last drawing from shruggedatlas is somewhat misleading. It shows that the cord is longer between X-A than X-B and X-C. So the ball goes directly from B to A when placing the ball at B due to slack in the cord. However, if X-A is shorter than X-C, releasing the ball at point B will then force the ball to follow the track through C, and back to A (Point A must therfor be higher up if X-A < X-C).
In a SMOT the magnetic potential energy in point A is greatest (However the magnetic force is the least at point A. Regarding the magnetic potential energy, view it as an upside down "gravity" as the magnets are above the ball at point A - not under it as gravity normally is).
What happens if:
Turning a whole SMOT upside/down, where A is above the magnets, you can release the ball at point A, using gravity and a tube-track to place it in point B. Then it will both go downhill towards gravity, simultaneously being forced magneticaly towards C - imagine the total energy of the ball at point C. What if one made a jump ramp to lead the ball back upwards to A again. Would the final kinetic energy in the ball at point C be enough to close the loop?
Someone keen to build an upside/down SMOT?
Vidar
@shruggedatlas,
Now I hope you already understand the problem and are fully convinced that CoE can be violated. It's good to acknowledge when something is understood.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 13, 2008, 08:35:00 PM
@shruggedatlas,
Now I hope you already understand the problem and are fully convinced that CoE can be violated. It's good to acknowledge when something is understood.
I think that my last drawing can be simulated in reality, though I allow for the chance that I may be wrong. But there is no point going back and forth on that, because either it will work, or it won't, and it is fairly easy to try.
If the experiment does work, then I do not see any difference between that and your SMOT. Intuitively, even without running equations, we all know that a rubber band, ball and ramp cannot violate CoE.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 13, 2008, 08:59:42 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 13, 2008, 08:35:00 PM
@shruggedatlas,
Now I hope you already understand the problem and are fully convinced that CoE can be violated. It's good to acknowledge when something is understood.
I think that my last drawing can be simulated in reality, though I allow for the chance that I may be wrong. But there is no point going back and forth on that, because either it will work, or it won't, and it is fairly easy to try.
If the experiment does work, then I do not see any difference between that and your SMOT. Intuitively, even without running equations, we all know that a rubber band, ball and ramp cannot violate CoE.
I suspected that. Turns out you're still not getting it.
On the contrary, like I said, if what you think your rubber band can do proves to be really true experimentally then we will know otherwise about a rubber band, that is, we will know that a rubber band can violate CoE under certain circumstances (described by you). Unfortunately, what you're proposing cannot work because of the reasons I already gave.
Thus, I'm waiting for you to finally get fully convinced that CoE can be violated in any case (so far we've seen experimentally confirmed only in SMOT and the magnetic propulsor) where the energy imparted to the ball is less than the energy the ball loses. If you can show another mechanical experiment, other than the SMOT and the magnetic propulsor, that can only be added as one more proof for violation of CoE and will be very interesting. I'm not holding my breath, though.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 13, 2008, 09:36:23 PM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 13, 2008, 08:59:42 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 13, 2008, 08:35:00 PM
@shruggedatlas,
Now I hope you already understand the problem and are fully convinced that CoE can be violated. It's good to acknowledge when something is understood.
I think that my last drawing can be simulated in reality, though I allow for the chance that I may be wrong. But there is no point going back and forth on that, because either it will work, or it won't, and it is fairly easy to try.
If the experiment does work, then I do not see any difference between that and your SMOT. Intuitively, even without running equations, we all know that a rubber band, ball and ramp cannot violate CoE.
I suspected that. Turns out you're still not getting it.
On the contrary, like I said, if what you think your rubber band can do proves to be really true experimentally then we will know otherwise about a rubber band, that is, we will know that a rubber band can violate CoE under certain circumstances (described by you). Unfortunately, what you're proposing cannot work because of the reasons I already gave.
Thus, I'm waiting for you to finally get fully convinced that CoE can be violated in any case (so far we've seen experimentally confirmed only in SMOT and the magnetic propulsor) where the energy imparted to the ball is less than the energy the ball loses. If you can show another mechanical experiment, other than the SMOT and the magnetic propulsor, that can only be added as one more proof for violation of CoE and will be very interesting. I'm not holding my breath, though.
It does not have to be mechanical.... *cough* virtual particles *cough*
It must be mechanical to claim analogy to SMOT. Unfortunately, so far, the only experiment in physics proving unequivocally violation of CoE is the Taisnierius experiment (SMOT) and its variation -- the magnetic propulsor. Nothing else.
Virtual particles by their very essence of being virtual are excluded as any real proof against CoE whatsoever.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 14, 2008, 01:01:37 AM
It must be mechanical. So far, the only experiment in physics proving unequivocally violation of CoE is the Taisnierius experiment (SMOT) and its variation -- the magnetic propulsor. Nothing else.
No, the virtual particle violates CoE in another time and space. It is unobservable and useless, thus making it simialer to the SMOT in that you cant use it. Because physics is based off the law of conservation they will stretch it to the point where the virtual particle no longer counts. This makes it entirely a point of view. In my point of view, anything that has an uncertain amount of energy and pops into mathematical view (strange way of saying it), violates CoE. If they were to aknowledge this, they would have to come up with some new stuff.
"limited time and space, introducing uncertainty in their energy and momentum due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle."
This summarizes the behaviour of the virtual particle. IF IT'S MATHEMATICALY THERE, THEN IT'S THERE. NO BUTS...
But we cant use it....
Doesn't mean it's not there.....
But we cant physicaly see it.....
Doesn't mean it's not there.....
Why?
Because it's created through the math thats based off CoE itself......
Huh?
It would be a contradiction to ignore it.....
Ok, I got it!
There you go...
LOL :)
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 14, 2008, 01:10:15 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 14, 2008, 01:01:37 AM
It must be mechanical. So far, the only experiment in physics proving unequivocally violation of CoE is the Taisnierius experiment (SMOT) and its variation -- the magnetic propulsor. Nothing else.
No, the virtual particle violates CoE in another time and space. It is unobservable and useless, thus making it simialer to the SMOT in that you cant use it. Because physics is based off the law of conservation they will stretch it to the point where the virtual particle no longer counts. This makes it entirely a point of view. In my point of view, anything that has an uncertain amount of energy and pops into mathematical view (strange way of saying it), violates CoE. If they were to aknowledge this, they would have to come up with some new stuff.
Not so. SMOT violates CoE in the real sense of the word. This is a real violation of CoE and that principle must not be considered as a general principle in physics any more.
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 14, 2008, 01:16:23 AM
"limited time and space, introducing uncertainty in their energy and momentum due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle."
This summarizes the behaviour of the virtual particle. IF IT'S MATHEMATICALY THERE, THEN IT'S THERE. NO BUTS...
But we cant use it....
Doesn't mean it's not there.....
But we cant physicaly see it.....
Doesn't mean it's not there.....
Why?
Because it's created through the math thats based off CoE itself......
Huh?
It would be a contradiction to ignore it.....
Ok, I got it!
There you go...
LOL :)
No, CoE isn't created through the math. CoE was an empirical (following from experimental evidence) principle until its violation in SMOT was discovered. Since that time CoE cannot be considered a general principle based on experiment since an experiment was found out which violates it.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 14, 2008, 01:18:29 AM
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 14, 2008, 01:10:15 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 14, 2008, 01:01:37 AM
It must be mechanical. So far, the only experiment in physics proving unequivocally violation of CoE is the Taisnierius experiment (SMOT) and its variation -- the magnetic propulsor. Nothing else.
No, the virtual particle violates CoE in another time and space. It is unobservable and useless, thus making it simialer to the SMOT in that you cant use it. Because physics is based off the law of conservation they will stretch it to the point where the virtual particle no longer counts. This makes it entirely a point of view. In my point of view, anything that has an uncertain amount of energy and pops into mathematical view (strange way of saying it), violates CoE. If they were to aknowledge this, they would have to come up with some new stuff.
Not so. SMOT violates CoE in the real sense of the word. This is a real violation of CoE and that principle must not be considered as a general principle in physics any more.
Ok, take for example virtual memory. It's the memory on your computer thats temporarily written to your harddrive. Physical memory, is the type of memory that is stored in your RAM. Virtual memory is generally used to help the Physical memory properly communicate (sort of like a map), but it is also used when the amount of memory needed exceeds the amount of available RAM. Thus memory is written to your harddrive instead. The amount of RAM is the CoE, and the virtual memory is the Virtual Particles. The virtual memory exceeds the CoE to communicate, but isn't actualy used. So it's virtual! Virt u al. VIRTUAL. Anyway (lol), but as you see, it does not mean at all that the memory isn't there. It's just in another time and space (hardrive). Just as the physical memory is in our time and space (RAM).
So this is where a person's point of view is decided. I would guess people who are more tuned to be open minded may choose the side viewing the violation, while people who are closed to this and only except whats "real", may view it from the CoE. Just as your smot omnibus. I too view the smot as a violation. I just hope you will someday view virtual particles as one too.
Absolutely not. That analogy is completely incorrect because in SMOT we are dealing with real amounts of energy imparted and lost. Not virtual, real.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 14, 2008, 01:22:47 AM
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on March 14, 2008, 01:16:23 AM
"limited time and space, introducing uncertainty in their energy and momentum due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle."
This summarizes the behaviour of the virtual particle. IF IT'S MATHEMATICALY THERE, THEN IT'S THERE. NO BUTS...
But we cant use it....
Doesn't mean it's not there.....
But we cant physicaly see it.....
Doesn't mean it's not there.....
Why?
Because it's created through the math thats based off CoE itself......
Huh?
It would be a contradiction to ignore it.....
Ok, I got it!
There you go...
LOL :)
No, CoE isn't created through the math. CoE was an empirical (following from experimental evidence) principle until its violation in SMOT was discovered. Since that time CoE cannot be considered a general principle based on experiment since an experiment was found out which violates it.
Forgot to mention this quote in my post.
"There is not a definite line differentiating virtual particles from real particles ? the equations of physics just describe particles (which includes both equally)."
This quote describes the reliance on math. It is then a empirical that you understand it's your point of view, because you CANNOT DENY THEIR EXISTANCE.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 14, 2008, 01:36:11 AM
Absolutely not. That analogy is completely incorrect because in SMOT we are dealing with real amounts of energy imparted and lost. Not virtual, real.
I guess you didn't actualy read the entire post, nor do you understand computers (differen't subject lol). By the way, the analogy isn't incorrect. It's your assumption that it isn't correct. You have yet to provide evidence that denies the virtual particles existence in all space and time. I would find that rather difficult...
Virtual particles are a mathematical creation and have no relevance in this discussion. I repeat, the amounts of energy under discussion regarding SMOT are real quantities of energy, not the result of mathematics, not virtual, not imaginary. These are real experimentally measurable quantities of energy.
This conversation is futile and need not be continued because it is based on false premises comparing real physical quantities with quantities resulting from purely mathematical constructs which have no analog in reality.
Because this conversation is starting to pollute I suggest we take our argument to a new thread, but I must get a yes on that from you or I will be creating a new thread without reason.
No, this conversation should end at once since it is futile.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 14, 2008, 01:45:03 AM
Virtual particles are a mathematical creation and have no relevance in this discussion. I repeat, the amounts of energy under discussion regarding SMOT are real quantities of energy, not the result of mathematics, not virtual, not imaginary. These are real experimentally measurable quantities of energy.
This conversation is futile and need not be continued because it is based on false premises comparing real physical quantities with quantities resulting from purely mathematical constructs which have no analog in reality.
The idea of energy is a mathematical creation. RIGHT? Otherwise we will call it move thingy, or strong thingy. You proved it with math right? Stop being a hypocrite on whats not relevant.
The idea of energy is not a mathematical creation. Learn physics first before daring to participate in such discussions.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 14, 2008, 01:48:00 AM
No, this conversation should end at once since it is futile.
It is not futile; you haven't created any evidence to disprove VP's. You deny it because it isn't your idea of real.....
Quote from: Omnibus on March 14, 2008, 01:50:07 AM
The idea of energy is not a mathematical creation. Learn physics first before daring to participate in such discussions.
LMAO, ROFL. Energy not a mathematical creation? Are you insane?
I don't care what you say now. You just dammaged your credibility so bad, I wonder if you've ever even processed physics.
I have multiple paragraphs to explain how Energy is a mathematical concept........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy)
Go away.
Yes, I am leaving now. I just had a very interesting argument with you Omnibus. It appears you have a differen't concept of reality. Don't take that the wrong way. Everybody does, but yours is very far from "well" (I have doubts on CoE) established physics.
I have to agree with Omnibus. there is no way for us to even detect the basic part of true energy to even create a mathematical equation of it.
Hell, most still think it's electrons and they are solid objects that flow through solid objects. LOL Our common knowledge of energy is that of a God like the bible tells it.
True pure energy can only be one thing and that is a vibration. These vibrations are so pure and vibrant that we don't even have the technology to detect them. The vibrations from the sun are just one of millions that we can not detect with our modern day technology.
We have found that we can create some such as odors by way of producing certain oscillating frequencies. John Hutchinson is one of few that was said to have been able to do this. Some oscillating frequencies are so powerful, they can bend, twist and rip steel apart.
Quote from: nightlife on March 14, 2008, 02:26:46 AM
I have to agree with Omnibus. there is no way for us to even detect the basic part of true energy to even create a mathematical equation of it.
Hell, most still think it's electrons and they are solid objects that flow through solid objects. LOL Our common knowledge of energy is that of a God like the bible tells it.
True pure energy can only be one thing and that is a vibration. These vibrations are so pure and vibrant that we don't even have the technology to detect them. The vibrations from the sun are just one of millions that we can not detect with our modern day technology.
We have found that we can create some such as odors by way of producing certain oscillating frequencies. John Hutchinson is one of few that was said to have been able to do this. Some oscillating frequencies are so powerful, they can bend, twist and rip steel apart.
Omnibus was talking about the idea of energy, not energy in it's purist form. His OU with the smot is based on mathematics, true?
I think Omnibus is cool 8)
Don't you get it all?
Omnibus need to be here, it would be very boring without him.
Like i said 2 poles
Hey Omni you have one friend here
regards
Gentlemen if we were answering to a boss what would we tell him we accomplished this week? Chet
One thing that was accomplished this week, among other things, is that @shruggedatlas is now on the way to understanding that none of the trivial "gedanken" experiments she was proposing is in any way an analog of the SMOT. SMOT is one of a kind unusual experiment which proves unequivocally violation of CoE, something no other mechanical device has been shown to do so far. Proving that CoE can be violated has far reaching consequences one of which is that said principle must not be considered as a general principle any more.
If there is excess energy somewhere, in which part of the SMOT is this happening?
Vidar
@ Low-Q:
I think what he is saying is that since the ball ends up at a higher elevation than when it started, the ball's potential energy has increased. Like a bowling ball 10 feet off the ground has greater potential energy than one 1 inch off the ground.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 15, 2008, 01:21:49 PM
@ Low-Q:
I think what he is saying is that since the ball ends up at a higher elevation than when it started, the ball's potential energy has increased. Like a bowling ball 10 feet off the ground has greater potential energy than one 1 inch off the ground.
Bill
OK thanks. That means it gains potential energy when going from B to C. Wouldn't the magnetic field at point C count for this energy gain? The potential energy in point C is considered to be a result of both gravity and magnetism - gravitational potential energy minus magnetically potential energy? As magnetism indeed lifts the ball up according to gravity, this force should be subtracted from the gravitational potential energy at point C, then ending up in the same or less potential energy than in point B, hence the ball can be able to escape from C and ending at in point A????
I think someone has turned some elements in his equation upside/down - just a thought.
Vidar