SMOT! - (previously about the OC MPMM)

[Omnibus]

@oak,

As I already said, the exchange on that topic is finished. Stay with the discussion at hand.

[tinu]

@Low-Q,

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.

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

[Omnibus]

@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?

[tinu]

@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.

[oak]

@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.