SMOT TEST- can someone do this?

[Low-Q]

As I said many times, you are confusing force and energy. Stop wasting everyone's time.

Let me put it this way: Force is important to transfer energy. Without the force, you cannot move the mass (energy) in the ball, which has a product called transfered energy, or work. So in fact I'm talking about both force, mass and distance. The product is work - which I have understood is the sub-issue discussed in this thread.

Vidar

[Mr.Entropy]

please eventually acknowledge that B is an inflexion point for magnetic potential (in a 2 dimensions graph) or a magnetic potential hill in 3dims. The chart of magnetic flux as provided by Vidar is an excellent aid to everyone interested.

By B you mean the field null.  Yes, that is a potential energy maximum, as follows:  Assuming an ideal ball, i.e., very small and magnetically soft, the attractive force on the ball is proportional to the gradient of the magnetic field energy density.  This is a scalar field equal to the square of the magnetic field strength at every point, so:

F = k*grad(|B|^2), for some constant k.

We know that the force on object from a conservative force field is F = -grad(E), where E is the corresponding potential energy field, so the magnetic potential energy:

E = -k*|B|^2.

Isn't that convenient -- the magnetic potential energy in the ball at any position is proportional to the minus inverse square of the flux density.  Of course, then, the field zero at point B is a potential energy maximum because it its a field strength minimum.

Theoretically, in such a magnetic field the ball can be placed as to (magnetically) "fall" on whichever 360degree horizontally planar direction. But mechanical constraints in SMOT (the rail) make the ball possibly move either forward (toward C) or backward (toward the outside of SMOT). Please acknowledge that BOTH directions are possible. It?s only the user?s hand that places& finely adjusts the ball?s position as it moves forward (toward C), right?

Yes, at your point B, the ball feels no force, but that position is unstable (it's the top of a hill), so if you give it a little nudge either forward or backward, the magnets will push it further in that direction.

If I?m not wrong in the above then, first conclusion: B is at least a local maximum of magnetic PE.

yes

But: along A-B there are no other inflexion points on PE curve (except of course point C but that?s another story for later; let?s stick for now in the A-B region, where is the issue under discussion) because there is nothing that can cause such an additional inflexion.
From the two above it necessarily logically results that Mb>Ma for SMOT.

Ah, but there are other inflection points.  As you move away from the SMOT from point B, the magnetic field strength quickly increases to a maximum, which means a PE minimum.  This is the point where it switches from repulsion to attraction.  The field strength then goes down as you continue to move away, approaching a 1/r^3 drop off.  As the field drops off, the PE comes back up to zero as -1/r^6, and that gets you pretty close to zero pretty darned quickly.  By the time we get to point A, the PE is quite close to its maximum value of zero again.

So, we have Ma and Mb both close to the maximum value of zero.  Which is greater, do you think?  Theoretically, Mb might be bigger, but in real life:

- consider that you can't actually place point B, where you put the ball, in the field null to start a SMOT, because there's no force there.  You have to place it closer to the magnets -- a lot closer, because the magnets have to pull it uphill.

- consider the effect of the ball's radius on Mb -- you can't fit the whole ball into that single point where |B|=0.  There will still be a place where it feels no net magnetic force, and it will still be a magnetic PE maximum, but that maximum will be rounder and lower that the one a small ball would see.

In real life, because of these considerations, Ma > Mb.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

[Omnibus]

@tinu,

?His claim is very easy to dismiss by one word: conservative.?

No, that?s not only not a basis for an easy dismissal of my claim but isn?t a basis for its dismissal at all. On the contrary, as I?ve explained many times, violation of CoE is observed in this case not because the sum of all the energy terms in the closed loop gives zero mathematically but because some of these terms have appeared out of nothing, out of no source, which is a physical conclusion, not a mathematical one. It should be well understood that in such matters subject of discussion here physics makes mathematics and not vice versa.



It is also most curious to observe how someone like you, claiming to be a scientist, allows himself to say in the same breath:

??Unfortunately, no proof was ever posted. Please keep this in mind: no proof, of any kind, was ever posted!?

while at the same time posting my very proof which shortly states as follows:

?Think about it, when you impart to the ball energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb))| to raise it from A to B then, if CoE is to be obeyed the ball must lose that exact amount, that is |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb))|, when it goes back to A and complete a closed loop. Not so, however, in our case of the ball completing a closed loop. The ball being at B (raised from A) and having energy (mgh1 + Mb) at B in our case doesn't lose energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)| when it goes back at A and closes the A-B-C-A loop. The ball in our case loses, as was said, energy Mb = (mgh2 + [KE + ...] ) as well as energy mgh1. This energy (that is the energy (mgh1 + Mb) which the ball loses in going from B back to A, closing the loop) is more than the energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)| that was imparted to it to raise it from A to B and that's a clear violation of CoE.?

Therefore, your former statement that no proof was ever posted, let alone proof of any kind isn?t true.

Then, not satisfied by saying untruths you appoint yourself to be the speaker of an entity called by you ?any scientists I know?:

?Well, the above does not make sense to any scientists I know.?

continuing to push the falsity that:

?And consequently, the claim that SMOT is producing energy from nothing is not logically &scientifically supported by any proof.?

Speak for yourself, don?t hide behind that fictitious entity ?any scientist I know?. Also, if you?re really a scientist you should know better that it cannot stand as a scientific argument in a scientific discourse.

Therefore, I?m not only not withdrawing my claim despite your wish that claim to just somehow go away but I urge you to curb your enthusiasm to fill the thread with your misunderstanding and confusion, let alone cavalierly massaging the truth.

[hoptoad]

@Omnibus

Let's assume for a moment, that your claims for violation of C of E in a SMOT are true.
Next, let's assume that it's a "mere engineering problem" to close the loop in a SMOT, as you've claimed in so many posts already.

Such a "mere engineering problem" shouldn't be beyond your ability to solve with a practical working demonstration!

Instead of constantly telling us that it is a "mere" engineering problem to be overcome, someone with your "apparent" theoretical ability should have no problem in producing a working model that proves your claims.

If you are really not very good at practical hands on construction, then why not get a "mere" engineer to help you.

It is not a requirement of anyone to prove you are wrong. When you make an extraordinary claim, it is up to you to provide extraordinary proof of your claim !

A practical working model of a looped SMOT would end all debate. I'm sure if you spent half as much time producing a working model, as you have spent trying to convince everyone of your claims, you would have already succeeded in closing the loop, and all your detractors would have to admit they were wrong. But until someone, including yourself succeeds in getting the SMOT to work in a loop, thus proving in a practical way the correctness of your claims, then your claims will always be dismissed as theory not based in fact!

[Omnibus]

@hoptoad,

You've remained with the wrong impression that to prove CoE one needs to build a self-sustaining contraption. That isn't so. Therefore, your desire to see such contraption has nothing to do with what science puts forth as a requirement for a rigorous proof. Also, whatever seems to you extraordinary or non-extraordinary will always remain your own perception. Science doesn't divide claims into such categories and the criteria in science to prove the validity of a claim are uniform throughout.