SMOT! - (previously about the OC MPMM)

[Omnibus]

@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.

[Omnibus]

@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.

[Omnibus]

@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.

[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.

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.

[tinu]

@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