SMOT! - (previously about the OC MPMM)

[Omnibus]

@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.

[Low-Q]

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

[Omnibus]

@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.

[shruggedatlas]

@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.

[Omnibus]

@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.