Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[shruggedatlas]

As for Naudin's experiment, please understand that the initial height at which the ball is lifted and from which the ball later falls (losing that initially imparted energy) when let go in the actual experiment and in the control experiment is one are the same. Therefore, the energy imparted to the ball when lifting it at this same height in the actual and in the control experiment should be the same. Thus, when falling from the same height the ball in the actual and in the control experiment should lose the same energy (should reach the same distance in the graduated tube). These energies, however, are not even the same, despite the ball being lifted at the same height, but in the actual experiment that initially imparted energy is less (because of the greater magnetic drag) than in the control experiment (where the magnetic drag is weaker--the magnets are pulled apart). Therefore, the ball in the actual experiment should lose less energy when it falls and should go a shorter distance in the glass tube than the ball in the control experiment, as is required if CoE is obeyed. However, as the experiment shows, the ball in the actual experiment, contrary to the expectations, reaches farther distance in the glass tube than the distance the ball reaches in the control experiment. This is in clear violation of CoE.

I regret to say this, but I think going further with you on this is nonproductive.  We will never agree on an experiment.  Naudin compares a drop from the input (with magnets present, though maybe farther away) with the drop from the output (after the ball accelerates through the SMOT).  I have gone over this in my head, and there is no way that this is proper.  The only honest test is to compare the output drop with a drop from the input height but with no magnets anywhere.  As it stands, of course the first Naudin trial will result in less energy - the ball starts at a lower height, but still has to battle the magnetic drag.  Anyone can see this, and it is not a fair test.

If you ever get corroboration from a reputable source, please let us know.  Perhaps someone else can put it in a way that is more persuasive, because with the way you have described it, it just does not make any sense at all to me.

[Omnibus]

@shruggedatlass,

You're confused by the fact that the ball in Naudin's experiment goes along a certain trajectory which differs from the trajectory it goes along in the control experiment. The spontaneous follow-up trajectory of the ball is unimportant, however, when you discuss the energy imparted to the ball. Read again what I told you, the energy imparted to the ball in the control experiment is even greater than the energy imparted to the ball in the actual experiment. Therefore, the ball in the actual experiment should lose spontaneously (going along the certain trajectory it goes along, having nothing to do with the imparted energy) less energy, if CoE is obeyed, than the energy the ball will lose spontaneously when the energy is imparted to it in the control experiment. Naudin demonstrates that it is just the opposite, which is in direct contradiction with the CoE. Again, don't get confused by the trajectories when you're comparing the energies imparted and energies lost. Naudin's experiment shows that even less energy (than the control experiment) leads to a greater energy loss (than in the control experiment). Try somehow to understand this evident contradiction with what would be according to CoE.

[hansvonlieven]

I know I will get shouted down for this, though I challenge anyone to prove that the suggested experiment is not definitive.

This simple experiment will qualitatively and quantitatively determine if there is overunity in a SMOT or not.

I know that the SMOT adherents do not want this and I will get flamed.

Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant.



Place a steel ball in the starting position and let it roll.
(The starting position will have to be determined by experiment. The steel ball must generate enough inertia by gravity to overcome the "sticky points".and guarantee continuous motion)

Measure how far up it went on the scale.

Remove SMOT.

Place ball in the same starting position and let it roll.

Measure again.

Compare measurements.

The difference, if any, between both measurements will indicate gain or loss of energy.

Hans von Lieven

[Pirate88179]

@ Hans:

I think this was what Shruggedatlas was suggesting however your design is more elegant. (In my opinion)  It either goes higher with the SMOT or it doesn't.  Same friction and heat loss, etc. for both experiments.  I think Shruggedatlas's idea would have worked also but this, is simplicity in itself.  (No flame here, I just want to know what is real)

Bill

[Omnibus]

Naudin's open-loop experiment gives the correct answer. All open-loop modifications of Naudin's experiment, such as the above, will give the same answer. The best experiment, however, proving violation of CoE beyond any doubt is the one in which the ball goes along the closed A-B-C-A loop. @shruggedatlass may have problems understanding it because she's no scientist and she has never pretended to be one. It's a shame, however, this to be beyond people who push themselves constantly to explain this or that in Science.