SMOT! - (previously about the OC MPMM)

[Omnibus]

@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.

[modervador]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Omnibus]

@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.

[Koen1]

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?

[Low-Q]

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.

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.

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