Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[acp]

@omnibus,

would you agree that a steel ball dropped with no magnets near it, imparts more energy on impact than the same ball dropped from the same height with a magnet placed near it? ( the magnet being placed close enough as to have attraction, but not close enough to prevent gravity allowing the ball to drop)

Yes, I do agree with that. And that's exactly why the @gaby de Wilde device pushed again here doesn't produce excess energy.

Then you also must agree then that Naudins reference test with the magnets placed further apart but not removed must have a braking effect on the ball, ie. it reduces the energy of the ball dropping in comparison to the test being made without the magnets present at all. The two scenarios are analagous are they not? therefore Naudins reference test is flawed.

[Omnibus]

@omnibus,

would you agree that a steel ball dropped with no magnets near it, imparts more energy on impact than the same ball dropped from the same height with a magnet placed near it? ( the magnet being placed close enough as to have attraction, but not close enough to prevent gravity allowing the ball to drop)

Yes, I do agree with that. And that's exactly why the @gaby de Wilde device pushed again here doesn't produce excess energy.

Then you also must agree then that Naudins reference test with the magnets placed further apart but not removed must have a braking effect, ie. it reduces the energy of the ball dropping in comparison to the test being made without the magnets present at all. The two scenarios are analagous are they not? therefore Naudins reference test is flawed.

I, of course, agree to that and I explained carefully several times already that this still doesn't make the energy imparted to the ball in the control equal or less than that in the actual experiment. And yet, in the actual experiment the ball loses more energy than in the control which is in clear violation of CoE. Please, read carefully the arguments and think before posting. Therefore, Naudin's reference is completely legitimate, it's even, obviously, more to the detrementt of his thesis, and his experiment does demonstrate real excess energy.

[Omnibus]

@shrugedatlas,

These same thoughts and approach are applied to the trivial experiments used in high school to demonstrated obeying of CoE claiming it's definitive. As we see it's not. Same approach applied to one particular experiment discussed here (based on one very particular overlaying of conservative fields) reveals that there are exceptions and CoE must not be considered as a general principle.

And here is an illustration for those who do not get it.  You guys are all thinking too macro.  Think micro.  You have to get inside the SMOT, and then things will become clear.  The reason we do not get excess energy, is that we are not operating in the SMOT frame, and we are not able to do this because we cannot exist solely inside the SMOT.

In the below scenario, there would be free abundant energy on this planet.  The Earth itself is the ball in the SMOT.  God lifts it from A to B.  During the ascent from B to C (which takes, let's say, 8 billion years), energy is free and boundless.  Bessler wheels are built by toddlers.  Cars do not need accelerator pedals, but only brakes.  You get the idea.  But then, after the 8 billion years, God has to reset the system.

Is this supposed to be funny? As I said, if you really want to understand the question apply the same way of thinking to the trivial experiments proving CoE and the SMOT. Outside of it as in the trivial experiments.

[shruggedatlas]

I, of course, agree to that and I explained carefully several times already that this still doesn't make the energy imparted to the ball in the control equal or less than that in the actual experiment. And yet, in the actual experiment the ball loses more energy than in the control which is in clear violation of CoE. Please, read carefully the arguments and think before posting. Therefore, Naudin's reference is completely legitimate, it's even, obviously, more to the detrementt of his thesis, and his experiment does demonstrate real excess energy.

So you would have no objection to Naudin's experiment if in the input drop there were no magnets at all?

[Omnibus]

I, of course, agree to that and I explained carefully several times already that this still doesn't make the energy imparted to the ball in the control equal or less than that in the actual experiment. And yet, in the actual experiment the ball loses more energy than in the control which is in clear violation of CoE. Please, read carefully the arguments and think before posting. Therefore, Naudin's reference is completely legitimate, it's even, obviously, more to the detrementt of his thesis, and his experiment does demonstrate real excess energy.

So you would have no objection to Naudin's experiment if in the input drop there were no magnets at all?

Sure, I won't but it isn't needed. Even the way it is now it still shows less lost energy from greater control energy imparted than from the energy imparted in the actual experiment. This is enough to prove violation of CoE.