Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[hansvonlieven]

How come? From  an imparted 3 units, 3 units are lost (that's the control), while from the imparted 2 units in the actual experiment 4 units are lost.

LOL  Not much of a proof, happens to my money all the time LOL

Hans von Lieven

[Omnibus]

How come? From  an imparted 3 units, 3 units are lost (that's the control), while from the imparted 2 units in the actual experiment 4 units are lost.

LOL  Not much of a proof, happens to my money all the time LOL

Hans von Lieven

That's crap.

[Omnibus]

@shruggedatlas,

If you don't like the numbers I gave you take any other set of numbers but always remember that the energy imparted in the control must be a higher number than that of the actual experiment while the energy lost in the control experiment must be a lower number than in the actual experiment. The outcome of this is a violation of CoE.

Don't forget also, that, as I already told you, for all practical purposes the magnets moved away in the control experiment amount to no magnets at all. If you, however, want to forget that and still want to consider magnetic field in the control experiment (which, nevertheless, is necessarily lower than the magnetic field in the actual experiment) then you must choose numbers as in the previous paragraph.

[shruggedatlas]

Mind you this, when the magnets are moved apart the control is practically in the absence of magnetic field. However, even in the unlikely event that in complete absence of magnets the control will show greater loss than the loss when SMOT is present (the imparted energy in the control being greater than that in the actual one), it will in no way invalidate the demonstrated discrepancy which is clearly at odds with CoE. Therefore, we don't even care what the outcome would be in whatever other experiment. In the concrete experiment Naudin carries out violation of CoE is real.

I am sorry, but by this logic, how is Naudin's experiment relevant at all?  You cannot both cite the experiment with the magnets moved apart as proof of violation of CoE, yet in the same breath, deem an experiment where the magnets are removed entirely as completely inconsequential.

The logic does not hold up.

How come? From  an imparted 3 units, 3 units are lost (that's the control), while from the imparted 2 units in the actual experiment 4 units are lost.

I admit that in the Naudin experiment, the ball travels farther from the output drop as compared to the imput drop, as illustrated in the diagram below.  That is not in dispute.

My point is that you hypocritically use this result as validation of your position that the SMOT violates CoE.  Note that the magnets are moved farther apart during the input drop (the control).  When we suggest running the test again, but removing the magnet ramps altogether during the control drop, you insist that the entire test is irrelevant and will not prove violation of CoE one way or another.

My question is this.  Why do you simultaneously use the test as validation of your position, while at the same time dismiss the idea of repeating the test as irrelevant?  (Note that you have said that moving the magnet ramps farther apart or even removing them altogether does not materially change the experiment, so that should not be the issue to you.)

[Omnibus]

Mind you this, when the magnets are moved apart the control is practically in the absence of magnetic field. However, even in the unlikely event that in complete absence of magnets the control will show greater loss than the loss when SMOT is present (the imparted energy in the control being greater than that in the actual one), it will in no way invalidate the demonstrated discrepancy which is clearly at odds with CoE. Therefore, we don't even care what the outcome would be in whatever other experiment. In the concrete experiment Naudin carries out violation of CoE is real.

I am sorry, but by this logic, how is Naudin's experiment relevant at all?  You cannot both cite the experiment with the magnets moved apart as proof of violation of CoE, yet in the same breath, deem an experiment where the magnets are removed entirely as completely inconsequential.

The logic does not hold up.

How come? From  an imparted 3 units, 3 units are lost (that's the control), while from the imparted 2 units in the actual experiment 4 units are lost.

I admit that in the Naudin experiment, the ball travels farther from the output drop as compared to the imput drop, as illustrated in the diagram below.  That is not in dispute.

My point is that you hypocritically use this result as validation of your position that the SMOT violates CoE.  Note that the magnets are moved farther apart during the input drop (the control).  When we suggest running the test again, but removing the magnet ramps altogether during the control drop, you insist that the entire test is irrelevant and will not prove violation of CoE one way or another.

My question is this.  Why do you simultaneously use the test as validation of your position, while at the same time dismiss the idea of repeating the test as irrelevant?  (Note that you have said that moving the magnet ramps farther apart or even removing them altogether does not materially change the experiment, so that should not be the issue to you.)

No, I don't. Read again what I wrote and try to understand it. Naudin always lifts the ball at the same hight, be it in the control or in the actual experiment. That's the fact you have to focus on.