Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[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.

This is better than Lead Out.

[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.

This is better than Lead Out.

Maybe it's even better to not stoop to the low of some pushy nobody.

[hansvonlieven]

Maybe it's even better to not stoop to the low of some pushy nobody.

Look who is talking LOL

Hans von Lieven

[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.

[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.