[geocentrism] Re: [Mag-Gen] Violation of Energy Conservation Principle
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Paul Deema" <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 14:40:48 +1000
I sent this to Pau, but decided to share it with all after being confronted
with how MS article below, tried to ridicule the original author because he
claimed it gave a problem with the conservation of energy.
First,
go here to see video of demo.
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847)
download and save for several viewing. Note exactly what happened.
More intrigue..and a better diagram This article attempts to smother and
ridicule .. Can you spot the faults in his Simenak's reasoning as he tries
unsuccessfully to save his conservation of energy belief system? I will
highlight his errors and sarcastic attitude ....Philip.
PS Perpetual Motion gets them angry, but what would you call the motion of the
moon? And please don't tell me he is objecting to eternal motion, which is not
what we are describing. He admits of frictionless motion as perpetual. We are
looking for overunity devices, which do not destroy the principle of
conservation of energy, because it would be an alternative energy source, no
different in principle than from extracting power from the tides. When you
examine this paper remember that the ball does accelerate uphill, and then ask
the question, is this cumulative kinetic energy greater or less than the
holding or attracting force of the final magnets. plm.
Testing a SMOT
by Donald E. Simanek
What is a SMOT?
Greg Watson's SMOT (Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy) has attracted the attention
of people who believe that perpetual motion is possible. The word "overunity"
in its name suggests that it has an efficiency greater than one. It's a simple
device, easily built with readily available square ceramic "refrigerator
magnets".
The diagram illustrates the arrangement of components. Ceramic magnets are
epoxied or otherwise fastened to an iron strip, with all their N poles (red)
facing the same direction. Two such arrays are made, and fastened to a wooden
board so that they form an angle. Bisecting that angle is an aluminum track on
which a steel ball (purple) can roll freely.
As one would expect, when the ball is placed at point A, and then released, it
will move with accelerating speed toward point B, toward the region of stronger
field. It will overshoot past the magnets, and there it is allowed to fall,
under the action of gravity, to a lower level.
Now the whole apparatus can be tilted, so that B is higher than A. If the tilt
is not too great, the ball will roll uphill from A to B, then drop to lower
level at B.
Our drawing shows the magnet arrays farther apart at the left than the right.
The original SMOT design had the arrays parallel, but tilted so that the left
end was lower than the right end, compared to the track. The important feature
is that the field experienced by the ball be increasingly greater as it moves
from A to B.
The non-ferrous track is necessary to prevent the ball from being attracted to
and moving toward one or the other of the magnet arrays. One can imagine other
ways to constrain the ball to move along the centerline between those arrays.
To a physicist, nothing surprising is going on here. But some people, misled by
careless and incomplete measurements of velocities, are claiming that the
device gives the ball up to 113% more energy after the drop than it had at
point A.(not so! obviously the energy of the ball is maximum before the drop is
completed after all losses) If that were so, they could use this device as the
basis for a continuously-running perpetual motion or over-unity machine.
Perhaps what's surprising to some people is that the ball starts from rest at A
and attains speed by the time it reaches B. They assume that the ball gains
energy from "stored energy" in the magnets. But in fact, at the starting point,
the ball already had stored potential energy due to the work done when the ball
was placed the ball in position. (It won't move to that spot by itself.) Any
excess energy at point B is simply that small amount of energy it acquired as
it was moved into position at the starting point. One can notice this, as the
ball must be held at the starting point against the small force of the field
pulling it forward. The ball gains kinetic energy as it moves from weaker at A
to stronger field at B, but when moving past the end of the magnet array, it
experiences a retarding force from the magnets that would slow it down if it
continued on a level path. It will slow to a stop if the path is long enough.
(but it is not allowed to do that. It falls over the edge.)
The perpetual motionists suppose that the loss of energy was entirely due to
friction of the ball rolling on the track. They fuss about rubbing graphite on
the track to lower the friction. Friction is difficult to measure accurately,
so it's a convenient excuse why the performance of the machine is not up to
their expectations.
The perpetual motionists also try to arrange a string of SMOTS in series. They
talk about "closing the loop" with ramps to route the exiting ball back to the
starting point. They wonder why none of these actually does close the loop. Not
once has a ball completed one full cycle.
In fact, some engage in premature speculation that there might be some
"regaguing of the field" as the ball drops at B" that there might be energy
gained from "zero point energy of the quantum field" and all sorts of similar
pseuscientific mumbo-jumbo. (Thats MS allright) They produce lots of talk, but
they scrupulously avoid doing any definitive experimental tests that might
demolish their belief that something unusual is going on here.
Nothing surprising is happening. Yet this device can serve as a simple example
of how to properly measure the performance of this device, also applicable to
testing many other types of alleged perpetual wheels.
May I suggest a viewing of the video labled SMOT Energy measurements HQ video
at http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm Now back to our critic...
Testing a SMOT
The PM enthusiasts claim that the SMOT increases the energy of a ball moving
through it. That's the claim we must test. Friction can never be completely
eliminated in any mechanical system. So we arrange a way to move a ball through
the smot, then do the same motion through the same space without the smot in
place. We then compare the performance with and without the SMOT. If
conventional physics is applicable, the performance should be no better (and
probably somewhat worse) with the SMOT than without it.
Imagine a steel ball on a rigid wooden bar, rotating so as to move through the
SMOT. Better yet, have a ball on each end of the bar, for balance, and for
twice as much "SMOT boost" per cycle. Oh, why not have a wheel of spokes with
balls on the end of each? Heck with the balls, just have steel or iron wheel
spokes, whose ends pass through the smot. The figure illustrates this refined
version.
Now as each spoke enters the SMOT, it is "sucked through", speeding up. But,
alas, it slows down on exit. But how much? And is it simply due to friction in
the wheel? Is there any additional energy from passing through the SMOT?
Please note here where he puts the smot. Gravity does not come into the
equation, which after all is where the extra energy, if any, comes from . Lets
put the smot vertically on the right hand side, and restore a ball or a small
polarised magnet that is heavy, and get rid of the distracting influence of
steel spokes for non ferrous spokes. Ignore the rest because it is irrelevant.
Phil
Remove the SMOT, and let's study the behavior of the wheel itself. Put some
sort of spring at the wheel axle, arranged so that it can be "wound" a fixed
and precise amount, to then deliver that amount of stored energy to the wheel.
The wheel will speed up as the spring releases its energy, then the spring
disengages without disturbing the wheel's motion. We then time how long it
takes the wheel to come to a stop.
Now do the same experiment with the SMOT. If the wheel is actually gaining
energy from the SMOT, it will run for a longer time before stopping. The wheel
friction is the same in either case.
Of course, two trials are not enough. We need to do a number of repeated
measurements under the same conditions without the SMOT in place, to see how
consistent and reliable is the wheel and the friction. For light loads such as
this, an unlubricated bearing is best. These repeated runs will establish what
± error limits to place on the time measurements.
With the SMOT in place, a similar set of repeated measurements is made. The
error limits are determined. If the performance in the two cases differs by an
amount greater than the error limits, and the difference favors the SMOT, then
we might have something going on that is worth further investigation. But if
the difference is within the error limits, or if the difference favors the case
without the SMOT, then the fantastic claims of the SMOT are not supported.
The "black box" labeled "SMOT" in the diagram may be replaced by any magical
device that is claimed to boost or increase energy of material objects passing
through it. Therefore this example serves as an example and guide for testing
many other allegedly over-unity devices.
Other possible tests.
One may easily imagine some other experimental tests.
1.. Use a single steel rod fastened to an axle. Let it swing through the
smot. Measure the initial height and final height of swing. Do the same without
the SMOT.
2.. Turn the wheel described above so that its axle is vertical, and the
spokes move in a horizontal plane. Turn the SMOT 90° also. Now gravity is
eliminated from the problem. Carry out the same sort of comparative
measurements.
Historical precedents.
Finally, we note that the seduction of this idea is the same one that was seen
in the earliest historical magnetic perpetual motion proposals. Consider the
classic design shown in the figure. A magnetic lodestone is fixed at the top of
the post. An iron ball is supposedly drawn up the straight ramp by its
attraction to the magnet. But it encounters a hole, where gravity causes it
fall to the lower, curved ramp, back to the starting point where it again moves
up the straight ramp. A minor engineering problem must be solved at the bottom,
to allow the transition from curved ramp to straight ramp, but that's solvable.
The trouble is that the motion down the curved ramp isn't simply under the
influence of gravity, but also is affected by the attractive force of the
lodestone at the top. It took scientists a long while to realize that magnetic
fields are conservative, and that the work done by the magnetic field on a body
moving around any closed loop is zero. This also applies to SMOTs.
Whenever I speak to an audience of physicists, and show this picture, it always
generates laughter, from those who have seen it before and those who haven't.
They immediately recognize it as an absurd idea even before they carry out any
analysis of it. In fact, they are unlikely to bother to do any analysis,
because they know the general laws of field theory and know what they allow and
what they don't. They are entirely justified in this reaction. Their response
to the SMOT is the same, for the same good reasons.
Questions from readers.
Closed loop (cyclic) operation?
Is it possible to get an array of SMOTS in series, adjusted so that a ball
would go completely around the loop?
No one claims to have achieved that yet. Those who have tried say that they
can't get rid of that pesky friction.
In the absence of all friction and other dissipative processes would cyclic
performance be possible? Yes, I think so. Remember I said that the ball already
has energy Eo when placed in the starting position. That was the energy it
gained as your hand moved it into the field at the starting position. The ball
gains kinetic energy K going through the magnet array, and loses that same
amount on exit, leaving it with energy Eo as it enters the next ramp. So, in
the absence of friction, the ball would retain energy Eo at the entry to each
successive ramp. It would cycle forever. That violates no physics, for a
frictionless wheel would cycle forever as well. But you couldn't get any more
energy out of it than that small Eo, and removing that energy would stop the
ball's motion. A perpetually moving wheel does not violate any physics, but you
can't get out of it any more work than put into it, and in getting out that
work, you stop the wheel.
Our idealization of zero friction and no dissipative processes is, of course,
unrealistic, and was only used here to illustrate the fact that friction is not
the reason this device cannot have over-unity performance.
Where does the "excess" energy of the SMOT come from?
If the energy of the ball on exiting the SMOT is greater than the energy it
had at the starting point, where does that energy come from?
Part of the appeal of the SMOT is a tactile-visual illusion. We see the gain in
speed up the ramp and say "Wow, where did that energy come from?" But consider
a ball rolling down a ramp. We take the ball from the table and place it at the
top of the ramp, it gains considerable speed rolling down and can then roll a
great distance on a level surface. It is hard to realize that all that energy
came from our carrying that ball from the table to the top of the ramp (from A
to B). It seemed "effortless", since we are used to lifting and carrying small
objects. But the energy is "there" (at point B), evidenced by the fact that as
soon as one removes one's hand from the ball at the starting point, the ball
"takes off" and begins to move. The potential energy is due to the position of
the ball in the earth's gravitational field. The same is true in the SMOT,
where the ball at the starting point has potential energy due to its position
in the magnetic field.
As to the question "Where was the energy when we placed the ball at the
starting point?" Well, where is the energy of the ball at the top of the ramp?
The energy is in the relation of the ball with respect to all other things that
exert force on it. It is a "configuration" energy due to geometry and the force
laws. That's what potential energy is.
Those who think the SMOT has output/input energy greater than one have made a
simple mistake. They take the input energy as simply its gravitational energy
at the starting point. They neglect to include the potential energy of the ball
due to its position in the magnetic field.
Conclusion
It's generally not difficult to test hypotheses about mechanical systems, and
it doesn't require costly apparatus. One is sometimes tempted to think that all
the pompous talk we hear from perpetual motion enthusiasts is all bluster. They
seem to scrupulously avoid doing the simple and inexpensive tests that could
conclusively demolish their preposterous claims.
Donald E. Simanek, June 23, 2004.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to front page.
Return to the top of this document.
Return to the Testing Perpetual Motion Machines.
Return to The Museum's Main Gallery.
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] Re: [Mag-Gen] Violation of Energy Conservation Principle
