Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[Omnibus]

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

Better yet of this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jZjEYu9BbW0. This whole thread is about it.

[tinu]

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.

I know well what potential energy is. Please don?t explain it to me as an insult.

When some people here, including various physicists, ask for an analysis this means, as you should well know, a formal proof conducted in a logical/scientific manner, which ends with CoE(SMOT)=Eout/Ein>1. Either it is done or it is not. Is it done? If it is, where can be founded? If not, are you willing&capable of posting one?

Please remember that claiming yourself as scientist as well as this forum as being scientific requires you to prove your claims. So far SMOT CoE issue is only vaguely discussed among hundreds of completely irrelevant posts and few rare posts that should give hope contain heavy gaps in pursuing the scientific proof and several unpardonable errors.

I re-quote one of your posts that started this discussion:
?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.?

Your last answer does not correct the above. Actually it aggravates the error.
I?ll explain in detail where I see the big flaw in your demonstration but not today. It?s already late here.
On short, the error is here: in order to have excess energy, the following has to hold true: (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb))< (+mgh1 +Mb). Can you prove it? I don?t think so, because any astute mind will immediately see it?s already the opposite?

Anyway, I?ll ask here loud and clear, once for all: do you have enough guts to put the proof on a file, going all the way from beginning to the end, with drawings, various formulas you throw disparately in different posts and everything else is needed (incl. a short discussion) for a problem-solving approach? Yes or no, please.

Many thanks,
Tinu

[leeroyjenkinsii]

Has anyone recreated this or is it just another FRAUD??

[tinu]

Has anyone recreated this or is it just another FRAUD??

Under replication, so far.

My strong belief: it is a fraud.
All ?perpetual magnetic motors? are. There is no such thing.

Good night,
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.

I know well what potential energy is. Please don?t explain it to me as an insult.

When some people here, including various physicists, ask for an analysis this means, as you should well know, a formal proof conducted in a logical/scientific manner, which ends with CoE(SMOT)=Eout/Ein>1. Either it is done or it is not. Is it done? If it is, where can be founded? If not, are you willing&capable of posting one?

Please remember that claiming yourself as scientist as well as this forum as being scientific requires you to prove your claims. So far SMOT CoE issue is only vaguely discussed among hundreds of completely irrelevant posts and few rare posts that should give hope contain heavy gaps in pursuing the scientific proof and several unpardonable errors.

I re-quote one of your posts that started this discussion:
?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.?

Your last answer does not correct the above. Actually it aggravates the error.
I?ll explain in detail where I see the big flaw in your demonstration but not today. It?s already late here.
On short, the error is here: in order to have excess energy, the following has to hold true: (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb))< (+mgh1 +Mb). Can you prove it? I don?t think so, because any astute mind will immediately see it?s already the opposite?

Anyway, I?ll ask here loud and clear, once for all: do you have enough guts to put the proof on a file, going all the way from beginning to the end, with drawings, various formulas you throw disparately in different posts and everything else is needed (incl. a short discussion) for a problem-solving approach? Yes or no, please.

Many thanks,
Tinu

Don't continue with this crap. You're wrong, you don't know what scientific proof is and, yes, you need explaining what potential energy and other elementary concepts are because you are unfamiliar with them, as it is quite obvious. It's better for you to listen more and try to learn rather than impudently push your ignorance here and obstruct the important discussion.