Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[tinu]

No, you are a snot. You are a disgusting snot. Dirty little nothing.

I wasn't actually calling you a snot, I was merely referring to that fact that you like to indulge in this kind of name calling which you have demonstrated so well again. Of course, you may call me a snot from the safety of your keyboard, that is your privilege being an elite member of this forum.

and ending with @tinu's obviously incorrect claim that at B the signs in the potential energy the ball has are not as I have shown them to be, that is, (+mgh1 +Mb),

You haven't "shown" anything, you simply repeat that tinu etc. are wrong and that you are obviously right.

Hey, buddy, you're a liar on top of that. Read you previous post and see once again are  or are you not calling me a snot. From the safety of you keyboard ...

Also, I have shown what I claim I've shown. You don't understand it but that doesn't mean that I haven't shown it. As for @tinu's misunderstanding, it is not to be used as an argument. Confusion and misunderstanding are never scientific arguments. @tinu must be clearly told that he just doesn't know what he's talking about when claiming that at B the potential energy of the ball (+mgh1 +Mb) has the wrong signs. This is basic stuff which a person conversant in Physics knows ahead of time, even before knowing me and my argument. One should know such stuff before entering into the discussions here. The fact that (+mgh1 +Mb) is the potential energy of the ball at B isn't prone to consensus. This is an absolute fact. Science isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship and facts such as the above dictate. There cannot be equally valid varying opinions about such facts. Therefore, one cannot be polite with people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth. You don't understand this and therefore you should restrain from further cluttering the thread with your useless but nasty comments.

Well, well. This is already pretty boring, isn?t it?
I said Mb is negative because it is actually opposing the sign of mgh, which is positive. At the time of posting that it was more like a hint. Now I have it shown.
Write it as you may like. Mb+mgh1<mgh1. Do you like it better this way?

Now, what I was asking for was clarifications about the: ?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.?

I was gently trying to tell you that you walk through deep swamps. But truth is the above quote is the most stupid statement I?ve ever read, given the scientific accuracy claims. Now you have it plainly stated. Take it slowly; if you don?t understand I?ll explain its complete idiocy. Hint: (mgh1-(Ma-Mb)) does not equal (mgh1+Mb). Huh! Well?!!! Of course they are not mathematically equal. Does it take a ?trained person? to see that?! They are not equal unless Ma=0 or? What? Why? Is it correct or wrong? What?s the physical significance? (MrEntropy and few others please refrain from posting the answer. I?d like to hear it from the source).

Anyway, after reading the above I realized it must be a complete vortex in your mind but let?s wait for your explanation; maybe I judged wrong. Then, as if it was not already enough, the puzzling part comes: ?the excess energy which accounts for??! Really?!!! Which excess?! That resulting from the above non-sense? If not from there, maybe from the in the right term. Or from other mysterious place?

Now, if one can write mgh1-Mb as potential energy in B and it can do that - believe me (this is also science and not far from basic stuff), so some explanations are expected from you, not only about the above in respect to your obvious ?intellectual superiority? but also about that SMOT utopia CoE you stressed us for the last 1.5 years if not longer.
You seem like talking a lot about ?people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth? but I suppose the only one doing that is you erroneously pushing about  SMOT CoE violation. I guess it?s time to deal with it one way or the other, if you really can stand such a discussion. If not, sorry for provoking.
   
My analysis about SMOT and about its behavior is done. I?ll post it soon, in reply to yours.
Meanwhile, please stop cluttering the thread with non-sense. 

Tinu

This is crap. Restrain from posting such crap here because it only clutters the discussion. There are really important issues to discuss here rather than straightening out someone's confusion.

No Sir. You are wrong. This is crap:
?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.?

Please do not clutter the discussion with collateral posts lacking arguments.
Thanks,
Tinu

Hey, buddy, don't play with the truth or you'll be soory. Arrogance never pays.

I?m not arrogant. You are.
All I?m asking is for a fair discussion.
If you can tell that everyone is wrong and only you are right, show why, if you can.
So far, the quote is wrong.

Tinu

[Omnibus]

No, you are a snot. You are a disgusting snot. Dirty little nothing.

I wasn't actually calling you a snot, I was merely referring to that fact that you like to indulge in this kind of name calling which you have demonstrated so well again. Of course, you may call me a snot from the safety of your keyboard, that is your privilege being an elite member of this forum.

and ending with @tinu's obviously incorrect claim that at B the signs in the potential energy the ball has are not as I have shown them to be, that is, (+mgh1 +Mb),

You haven't "shown" anything, you simply repeat that tinu etc. are wrong and that you are obviously right.

Hey, buddy, you're a liar on top of that. Read you previous post and see once again are  or are you not calling me a snot. From the safety of you keyboard ...

Also, I have shown what I claim I've shown. You don't understand it but that doesn't mean that I haven't shown it. As for @tinu's misunderstanding, it is not to be used as an argument. Confusion and misunderstanding are never scientific arguments. @tinu must be clearly told that he just doesn't know what he's talking about when claiming that at B the potential energy of the ball (+mgh1 +Mb) has the wrong signs. This is basic stuff which a person conversant in Physics knows ahead of time, even before knowing me and my argument. One should know such stuff before entering into the discussions here. The fact that (+mgh1 +Mb) is the potential energy of the ball at B isn't prone to consensus. This is an absolute fact. Science isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship and facts such as the above dictate. There cannot be equally valid varying opinions about such facts. Therefore, one cannot be polite with people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth. You don't understand this and therefore you should restrain from further cluttering the thread with your useless but nasty comments.

Well, well. This is already pretty boring, isn?t it?
I said Mb is negative because it is actually opposing the sign of mgh, which is positive. At the time of posting that it was more like a hint. Now I have it shown.
Write it as you may like. Mb+mgh1<mgh1. Do you like it better this way?

Now, what I was asking for was clarifications about the: ?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.?

I was gently trying to tell you that you walk through deep swamps. But truth is the above quote is the most stupid statement I?ve ever read, given the scientific accuracy claims. Now you have it plainly stated. Take it slowly; if you don?t understand I?ll explain its complete idiocy. Hint: (mgh1-(Ma-Mb)) does not equal (mgh1+Mb). Huh! Well?!!! Of course they are not mathematically equal. Does it take a ?trained person? to see that?! They are not equal unless Ma=0 or? What? Why? Is it correct or wrong? What?s the physical significance? (MrEntropy and few others please refrain from posting the answer. I?d like to hear it from the source).

Anyway, after reading the above I realized it must be a complete vortex in your mind but let?s wait for your explanation; maybe I judged wrong. Then, as if it was not already enough, the puzzling part comes: ?the excess energy which accounts for??! Really?!!! Which excess?! That resulting from the above non-sense? If not from there, maybe from the in the right term. Or from other mysterious place?

Now, if one can write mgh1-Mb as potential energy in B and it can do that - believe me (this is also science and not far from basic stuff), so some explanations are expected from you, not only about the above in respect to your obvious ?intellectual superiority? but also about that SMOT utopia CoE you stressed us for the last 1.5 years if not longer.
You seem like talking a lot about ?people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth? but I suppose the only one doing that is you erroneously pushing about  SMOT CoE violation. I guess it?s time to deal with it one way or the other, if you really can stand such a discussion. If not, sorry for provoking.
   
My analysis about SMOT and about its behavior is done. I?ll post it soon, in reply to yours.
Meanwhile, please stop cluttering the thread with non-sense. 

Tinu

This is crap. Restrain from posting such crap here because it only clutters the discussion. There are really important issues to discuss here rather than straightening out someone's confusion.

No Sir. You are wrong. This is crap:
?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.?

Please do not clutter the discussion with collateral posts lacking arguments.
Thanks,
Tinu

Hey, buddy, don't play with the truth or you'll be soory. Arrogance never pays.

I?m nor arrogant. You are.
All I?m asking is for a fair discussion.
If you can tell that everyone is wrong and only you are right, show why, if you can.
So far, the quote is wrong.

Tinu

Everyone who says, as you do, that at B the ball doesn't have energy (+mgh1 +Mb) is wrong and will be confronted by me vigorously as arrogant slob pushing his ignorance on the forum. Every single one.

[tinu]

No, you are a snot. You are a disgusting snot. Dirty little nothing.

I wasn't actually calling you a snot, I was merely referring to that fact that you like to indulge in this kind of name calling which you have demonstrated so well again. Of course, you may call me a snot from the safety of your keyboard, that is your privilege being an elite member of this forum.

and ending with @tinu's obviously incorrect claim that at B the signs in the potential energy the ball has are not as I have shown them to be, that is, (+mgh1 +Mb),

You haven't "shown" anything, you simply repeat that tinu etc. are wrong and that you are obviously right.

Hey, buddy, you're a liar on top of that. Read you previous post and see once again are  or are you not calling me a snot. From the safety of you keyboard ...

Also, I have shown what I claim I've shown. You don't understand it but that doesn't mean that I haven't shown it. As for @tinu's misunderstanding, it is not to be used as an argument. Confusion and misunderstanding are never scientific arguments. @tinu must be clearly told that he just doesn't know what he's talking about when claiming that at B the potential energy of the ball (+mgh1 +Mb) has the wrong signs. This is basic stuff which a person conversant in Physics knows ahead of time, even before knowing me and my argument. One should know such stuff before entering into the discussions here. The fact that (+mgh1 +Mb) is the potential energy of the ball at B isn't prone to consensus. This is an absolute fact. Science isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship and facts such as the above dictate. There cannot be equally valid varying opinions about such facts. Therefore, one cannot be polite with people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth. You don't understand this and therefore you should restrain from further cluttering the thread with your useless but nasty comments.

Well, well. This is already pretty boring, isn?t it?
I said Mb is negative because it is actually opposing the sign of mgh, which is positive. At the time of posting that it was more like a hint. Now I have it shown.
Write it as you may like. Mb+mgh1<mgh1. Do you like it better this way?

Now, what I was asking for was clarifications about the: ?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.?

I was gently trying to tell you that you walk through deep swamps. But truth is the above quote is the most stupid statement I?ve ever read, given the scientific accuracy claims. Now you have it plainly stated. Take it slowly; if you don?t understand I?ll explain its complete idiocy. Hint: (mgh1-(Ma-Mb)) does not equal (mgh1+Mb). Huh! Well?!!! Of course they are not mathematically equal. Does it take a ?trained person? to see that?! They are not equal unless Ma=0 or? What? Why? Is it correct or wrong? What?s the physical significance? (MrEntropy and few others please refrain from posting the answer. I?d like to hear it from the source).

Anyway, after reading the above I realized it must be a complete vortex in your mind but let?s wait for your explanation; maybe I judged wrong. Then, as if it was not already enough, the puzzling part comes: ?the excess energy which accounts for??! Really?!!! Which excess?! That resulting from the above non-sense? If not from there, maybe from the in the right term. Or from other mysterious place?

Now, if one can write mgh1-Mb as potential energy in B and it can do that - believe me (this is also science and not far from basic stuff), so some explanations are expected from you, not only about the above in respect to your obvious ?intellectual superiority? but also about that SMOT utopia CoE you stressed us for the last 1.5 years if not longer.
You seem like talking a lot about ?people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth? but I suppose the only one doing that is you erroneously pushing about  SMOT CoE violation. I guess it?s time to deal with it one way or the other, if you really can stand such a discussion. If not, sorry for provoking.
   
My analysis about SMOT and about its behavior is done. I?ll post it soon, in reply to yours.
Meanwhile, please stop cluttering the thread with non-sense. 

Tinu

This is crap. Restrain from posting such crap here because it only clutters the discussion. There are really important issues to discuss here rather than straightening out someone's confusion.

No Sir. You are wrong. This is crap:
?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.?

Please do not clutter the discussion with collateral posts lacking arguments.
Thanks,
Tinu

Hey, buddy, don't play with the truth or you'll be soory. Arrogance never pays.

I?m nor arrogant. You are.
All I?m asking is for a fair discussion.
If you can tell that everyone is wrong and only you are right, show why, if you can.
So far, the quote is wrong.

Tinu

Everyone who says, as you do, that at B the ball doesn't have energy (+mgh1 +Mb) is wrong and will be confronted by me vigorously as arrogant slob pushing his ignorance on the forum. Every single one.

That?s all what I ask for. A complete analysis.
Show it and if correct I will support the SMOT idea to the end of my life.
Until then, it (CoE>1) never happened. No offense, but I could not see it proved neither theoretically nor experimentally and apparently no one else around did, except you.

Many thanks,
Tinu

[Omnibus]

My analysis is complete. To understand it you have to recall what potential energy is. Thus, because potential energy is the energy of position, the ball at B must have gravitational potential energy +mgh1 with respect to A because it's at a distance h1 from A (at A the potential energy is arbitrarily set to zero). Same thing with the magnetic potential energy. Because at C the potential energy is arbitrarily set to zero, as is required when talking about potential energy--it is always measured with respect to an arbitrary zero--the magnetic potential energy of the ball at B with respect to C, outstanding from C at a distance BC, is +Mb. Thus, the total potential energy of the ball at B (being the sum of its gravitational and its magnetic potential energies) is (+mgh1 +Mb) and is not different from that, as you're incorrectly trying to push it through posting continuously here.

[Qwert]

 Quote from: Omnibus: Reply #453 on: Today at 05:16:52 PM

...>"What's your point?"<

My point is this: SMOT is a linear equivalent of this idea:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kCr3lOhMJCg