Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[Paul-R]

@shruggedatlas,
You have gaps in understanding basic Physics and therefore, what you're saying is incorrect. Please consult first some standard Physics textbook before coming here to discuss this matter. It's a waste of time to continue when you're so confused about the fundamentals.

Yes, I agree, Omnibus. We should not be draining Stefan's bandwidth with this.
It is patently obvious that a ball gaining height has an increase in potential energy
of M x G x H where H is the change in height and G is the gravitational constant.

As for a rotating system which is going at a steady speed, the energy would be that required to
overcome friction in the bearings.
Paul.

[Mr.Entropy]

Hi SA,

I challenge the underlying assumption that the net change in magnetic energy is zero.  The potential magnetic energy at A is not at its peak but is in fact zero, because the magnet is too far away to have any pull at that point, so it is dishonest to conclude from this that the net change in magnetic energy throughout the entire process is zero.

The magnetic potential energy is maximal at A.  Since the magnets are attracting the ball, it takes work to move the ball away from them, and they do work on the ball when the ball moves towards them.  The ball's magnetic potential energy at any point is the amount of work you could get by allowing the ball to move toward the magnet as far as possible.  So, the farther away the ball is, the more magnetic potential energy it has.  Since the attractive force is very low at A and points farther away, the ball's magnetic potential energy at A is very close its magnetic potential energy at points very far away.  Some people like to call the far away value 0, and assign negative numbers to the close-in values -- it doesn't matter since only relative measurements are made.

The field of magnetic force that pushes on the ball is pretty much "conservative", meaning that the net work done by the field on by ball as it moves between two points is the same, regardless of the path it takes between those points, and is equal to the change in potential.  In terms of magnetic potential, A > B > C.

The gravitational force field is also conservative in this way, but in terms of gravitational potential, C > B > A.

The thing about the SMOT that fools observers is simply that the drop in magentic potential between B and C overwhelms the gain in gravitational potential.  The net loss in potential energy is converted into the kinetic energy imparted to the ball.

During the fall from C to A, the ball loses gravitational potential energy, but gains magnetic potential energy.  The gravitational loss is larger, again resulting in net addition of kinetic energy to the ball.

I'm afraid that ALL of this kinetic energy is indeed dissipated as heat and sound when the ball hits the ceramic dish and bounces around a little.

Not to worry, though.  As the monkey's hand raises the ball from A to B,  there is a net gain in the potential energy of the ball that (pretty much) exactly balances the net loss experienced as the ball moves from B to C to A.  It must balance, because, due to the conservative nature of the fields involved, the total change from B to B, along any path, including B-C-A-B, is zero.

Hope that helps,

Mr. Entropy

P.S. the "pretty much" qualifications above are due to the fact that the magnetization of the ball is not constant, and may include time-sensitive effects, meaning that the ball may have slightly different magnetizations in the same place at different times.  This means the field of force on the ball isn't precisely conservative.  AFAIK, all of those effects are loss mechanisms like eddy currents and magnetic viscosity, but I don't know about all the applicable effects.

[Omnibus]

@Mr.Entropy,

While you show slightly better understanding of Physics than @shruggedatlas (cf. the correct understanding what the magnetic potential energy at A is and that conservative (not ?pretty much conservative?) fields are under observation here) you suddenly fail at the final:

Not to worry, though.  As the monkey's hand raises the ball from A to B,  there is a net gain in the potential energy of the ball that (pretty much) exactly balances the net loss experienced as the ball moves from B to C to A.  It must balance, because, due to the conservative nature of the fields involved, the total change from B to B, along any path, including B-C-A-B, is zero.
Hope that helps,

This is how a monkey would understand something obvious. Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.

This has already been explained many times over and, like I already said, you?d do better to restrain from cluttering the thread with nonsense.

The discussion in this thread is how to apply this already proven fact that energy out of nothing can be produced discontinuously (which, as a matter of fact, is already practically applicable in its own right) to construct a device producing such energy out of nothing continuously--a much more convenient practical utilization of the already proven violation of CoE. Except for maybe Finsrud, @xpensif is the closest to achieving this goal. The only thing now needed for @xpenzif to get full credit is to have replication of his motor by an independent third party or better independent third parties.

[Mr.Entropy]

@Omnibus,

When you pretend to be a professor, do you pretend to treat your students so abusively?

You are tempting me to clutter the thread with yet more explanations!  Unlike yourself, I don't mind explaining physics to people who don't know that much physics, and who might appreciate it.

But take heart!  You, I'm certain, would not appreciate it, so I will refrain, and leave you to the furious defense of your own ignorance.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

[Omnibus]

@Omnibus,

When you pretend to be a professor, do you pretend to treat your students so abusively?

You are tempting me to clutter the thread with yet more explanations!  Unlike yourself, I don't mind explaining physics to people who don't know that much physics, and who might appreciate it.

But take heart!  You, I'm certain, would not appreciate it, so I will refrain, and leave you to the furious defense of your own ignorance.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

This thread doesn't need monkey-type explanations such as the ones you clutter it with. What this thread needs I mentioned in my previous post.