Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[shruggedatlas]

@shruggedatlass,

Please, understand that ball at C gains, I repeat, gains, energy mgh2 (height h2), as well as kinetic energy plus other kinds of energy, at the expense of the energy (Mb - Mc), where Mc = 0. Again, energy (Mb - Mc) is spent energy, while energy mgh2 plus kinetic and other energies are gained energies. Energy (Mb - Mc) is spent in order to gain energy mgh2 plus kinetic and other energies. This is the CoE in its "transformation" part which firmly holds and which is the part almost always considered in scientific analyses--the energy (Mb - Mc) is transformed in equivalent quantity into mgh2 plus kinetic and other energies. In SMOT as in any experiment whatsoever, there is no violation of CoE in its "transformation" aspect, formulated still in Lomonosov's works. Lomonosov isn't known in the West at all but in fact, as far as I know, he was the first to formulate that aspect of the CoE principle. When people say that the principle of CoE has never been proven to have been violated they mostly mean exactly this "transformation" part of the CoE principle which, indeed, has never been violated. As I said, SMOT doesn't violate it as well. What is new in SMOT is that it demonstrates the production of the energy mgh2 + kinetic etc. from no source. The magnetic energy (Mb - Mc) spent to produce said mgh2 + kinetic etc. energies upon closing the A-B-C-A loop is fully compensated when that A-B-C-A loop closes. There's no depletion of the magnetic potential energy reservoir when the A-B-C-A loop closes. Thus, upon closing the A-B-C-A loop, although there's no loss or gain of magnetic potential energy, the ball loses more energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + kinetic etc.) than the energy that was imparted to it (mgh1).

I see what you are saying, but I am wondering if the mgh2 that is produced on the way from B to C is also compensated for by the end of the A-B-C-A loop.

I am curious, let's say you have a strong magnet a foot above a steel ball, enough to lift the ball off the floor.  If you (1) place the ball directly under the magnet, (2) let it go, letting it rise and attach to the magnet, and (3) pull it back using your hand and place it at the starting spot on the floor, is excess energy produced in this experiment, or is entire process under unity?  I would say it is not overunity, because the energy produced by the magnet was spent by the human hand pulling the ball back to the original position.  Hopefully we agree on this.

If we agree, please indulge me in a thought experiment.  Lets keep your SMOT setup exactly the same, but increase the magnetism tenfold, enough to lift the ball off the ground at A.  To enable the ball to path correctly, let's place a hypothetical no-friction wire tube between A and B and also between B and C.  As before, point C is where magnetic potential is zero.

My position is that increasing the magnetic force should not fundamentally change the over/under unity aspect of the experiment, assuming the ball still travels in the same path.

Now, let's see what happens.  The ball is placed at A, and as soon as it is released, the ball (1) spontaneously rises to B, and then (2) immediately proceeds to C, where it stops.  Now, for the third step, the researcher uses his hand to pull the ball away from C and lower it to A.

Without running any calculations, I would say that this hypothetical situation is really no different than letting a ball go directly under a magnet.  The only difference is the ball takes a dog-leg path to the point of minimum magnetic potential energy.  Therefore, the experiment is not over unity.  I would also say that this experiment is really no different from the original SMOT scenario.  Given that both magnetic and gravitational fields are conservative, increasing one ought to not change the fact that the process is still over or under unity, whichever the case may be, so long as there is enough magnetic force to cause the steel ball to ascend from B to C. (I admit that the amount of energy spontaneously generated between points B and C may change, depending on magnet strength).

Can you meaningfully differentiate my hypotheticals from your scenario - did I make a mistake somewhere?  And if not, how do you account for excess energy in your example and no excess energy in my example?  Thanks for your time.

[Omnibus]

I am curious, let's say you have a strong magnet a foot above a steel ball, enough to attract lift the ball off the floor.  If you (1) place the ball directly under the magnet, (2) let it go, letting it rise and attach to the magnet, and (3) pull it back using your hand and place it at the starting spot on the floor, is excess energy produced in this experiment, or is entire process under unity?  I would say it is not overunity, because the energy produced by the magnet was spent by the human hand pulling the ball back to the original position.  Hopefully we agree on this.

That?s correct. We agree on that.

If we agree, please indulge me in a thought experiment.  Lets keep your SMOT setup exactly the same, but increase the magnetism tenfold, enough to lift the ball off the ground at A.  To enable the ball to path correctly, let's place a hypothetical no-friction wire tube between A and B and also between B and C.  As before, point C is where magnetic potential is zero.
My position is that increasing the magnetic force should not fundamentally change the over/under unity aspect of the experiment, assuming the ball still travels in the same path.

This second experiment differs from your first experiment. Recall you said when you offered your second experiment that we?ll keep the SMOT setup exactly the same which I also take it to mean that the ball will go along the closed A-B-C-A loop. In your second experiment the ball restores spontaneously it?s initial position A (if it is to be analogous to SMOT, as you required). In the first it doesn?t. In your first experiment you have to spend energy to move the ball back to its initial position. Therefore, the second one, if it should be analogous to SMOT, is ?overunity?. It?s like watching a rock lying in front of you which suddenly jumps up and then falls back on the ground for no reason at all as you?re staring at it. Such a phenomenon cannot be observed just like that, correct? It has never been observed, as a matter of fact. What is observed in SMOT is under some very, very special condition and it is in it?s essence exactly as you?d observe the above rock. But that's under some very special circumstances.

Now, let's see what happens.  The ball is placed at A, and as soon as it is released, the ball (1) spontaneously rises to B, and then (2) immediately proceeds to C, where it stops.  Now, for the third step, the researcher uses his hand to pull the ball away from C and lower it to A.

Ooops. The researcher in SMOT doesn?t use his hand to move the ball from C to A. Therefore, what you?re proposing now isn?t analogous to what SMOT does.

Without running any calculations, I would say that this hypothetical situation is really no different than letting a ball go directly under a magnet.  The only difference is the ball takes a dog-leg path to the point of minimum magnetic potential energy.  Therefore, the experiment is not over unity.  I would also say that this experiment is really no different from the original SMOT scenario.  Given that both magnetic and gravitational fields are conservative, increasing one ought to not change the fact that the process is still over or under unity, whichever the case may be, so long as there is enough magnetic force to cause the steel ball to ascend from B to C. (I admit that the amount of energy spontaneously generated between points B and C may change, depending on magnet strength).

Like I said, the hypothetical situation you describe is different from what the situation in SMOT is. Never forget that the researcher only spends energy along the part A-B of the path. The rest of the path, that is B-C-A, until the ball closes the loop is covered by the ball spontaneously (no involvement of the researcher). That?s different from what you propose in your thought experiment.

Now, a word about these fields being conservative. Both these fields are conservative and the overall sum of all work terms along the closed loop amounts to zero, however, some of these terms (cf. mgh2) have appeared out of nothing. Thus, there is no energy source responsible for the appearance of the term mgh2.

Can you meaningfully differentiate my hypothetical from your scenario - did I make a mistake somewhere?  And if not, how do you account for excess energy in your example and no excess energy in my example?  Thanks for your time.

I did this differentiation above. In your example there is no excess energy because all the magnetic potential energy the ball loses in going along A-B-C is restored by you when you pull it from C to place it back at A (we?re talking about the energy of the ball, never forget that). Same applies in your case to the gravitational potential energy (in the opposite sense, of course). In the SMOT I?m talking about, the energy gained by the ball due to the activity of the researcher and his or her spending energy is (mgh1 ? (Ma - Mb)) while the energy the ball loses is (mgh1 + Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic + ...]) when the ball completes the A-B-C-A loop. As you see, in the case I?m discussing the ball loses more energy than the energy imparted to it (imparted to the ball; we?re always considering the energy of the ball in these analyses) by the researcher. This is in clear violation of CoE in its ?conservation? part, not its ?transformation? part, the latter continuing to hold good.

[UncleFester]

If you are familiar with Dan LaRochelle's theory called "Tri-Force" then you will see why most of these magnetic motor setups are similar in that they are using three rows of magnets.

The theory is that magnet A and B help to overcome the sticky spot of magnet C, thus creating a constant surplus of positive force at all times. 2 magnets are always overcoming the third magnets drag.

Look at most of the magnetic motor setups that look promising or claim to be working. They almost always use three rotors, rows etc.

May be obvious to some already but worth mentioning.

Did this guy just disappear or what? No answers from him in a while?

Tad

[shruggedatlas]

In the first it doesn?t. In your first experiment you have to spend energy to move the ball back to its initial position. Therefore, the second one, if it should be analogous to SMOT, is ?overunity?. It?s like watching a rock lying in front of you which suddenly jumps up and then falls back on the ground for no reason at all as you?re staring at it. Such a phenomenon cannot be observed just like that, correct? It has never been observed, as a matter of fact. What is observed in SMOT is under some very, very special condition and it is in it?s essence exactly as you?d observe the above rock. But that's under some very special circumstances.

Thank you for taking the time to answer. 

This spontaneous jump appears to be central to your analysis.  In the SMOT scenario, the mechanical advantage the ramp allows the magnetic bars to overcome the force of gravity and pull the ball up to point C.  But without this mechanical advantage, there would be no "jumping up and falling back."

How can any excess energy can be created when all that happens is that a temporary mechanical advantage allows one force to temporarily dominate another?  The SMOT's design is clever in that the ramp ends. If the ramp did not end, the ball would get stuck at C.  Conversely, if there was no ramp, the ball would be at B forever.  But even in the clever classical configuration, there is no way to get the ball back to B with even the tiniest frictional losses, because a ramp does not create energy, it just allows one side to prevail for a while.

This reminds me of all the failed perpetual motion wheel designs.  They all invariably rely solely on mechanical advantage, with things shifting from inside parts of the wheel to the exterior.  We all know at this point that mechanical advantage alone is a dead end, and I really do not see how the SMOT is anything more.

Finally, I have to ask, do you really think that the reason the ball cannot make it back to B is due to frictional losses?  Honestly?  A steel ball rolling along a smooth surface has very low rolling friction, because unlike a tire wheel or something similar, there is virtually no deformation.  SMOT enthusiasts make claims of 113% unity.  Surely the extra 13% percent, or heck even 3%, ought to be enough to keep a steel ball rolling along a smooth track, no?  Doesn't this observation give you the slightest pause?

Don't you think it would be prudent to actually measure frictional losses and see if they can possibly account for the lack of kinetic energy of the ball as it arrives back at A (or exits C, or escapes the magnetic pull of C, whichever you prefer)?

[Liberty]

From a laymans point of view, the outstanding thing that I see is that a certain distance was accomplished or traveled by the steel ball after traveling up the magnetic track without energy input during a portion of the SMOT track without resulting in magnetic lock at the end to release it.