Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[Omnibus]

i dont understand why would omnibus make such claims when this had been beaten to death by many
including himself

arguing with guy like him is pointless
i have no more to say

You're a shameless liar. The opposite of what you're saying is true. SMOT has been proven to violate CoE beyond any doubt.

Do you have some kind of pathological need to get the last word, even if it adds nothing new to the discussion?

Probably you do. Stop uttering these incoherent ramblings and you won't hear a response from me. This applies to everyone else cluttering the thread with crap.

[Pirate88179]

@ Omnibus:

With all due respect sir, and I do respect your knowledge of physics, you keep touting Xpensiv's device as an example.  I totally disagree.  I think this device was a fraud from the word go. (Please feel free to check all of my posts on the matter)  A lot of others here agree.  My replication attempts, as well as many others, have shown this to be "true".  Please show evidence that we are all wrong.  He is gone so he is of no help here.  I have seen nothing, I repeat, nothing that "demonstrates" that this was not a fraud.  Show us something that overturns this and I will apologize to him. Until then, I remain hopeful, but not encouraged.

Bill

[shruggedatlas]

@ Omnibus:

With all due respect sir, and I do respect your knowledge of physics, you keep touting Xpensiv's device as an example.  I totally disagree.  I think this device was a fraud from the word go. (Please feel free to check all of my posts on the matter)  A lot of others here agree.  My replication attempts, as well as many others, have shown this to be "true".  Please show evidence that we are all wrong.  He is gone so he is of no help here.  I have seen nothing, I repeat, nothing that "demonstrates" that this was not a fraud.  Show us something that overturns this and I will apologize to him. Until then, I remain hopeful, but not encouraged.

Bill

What's funny is that expezif's device does not even have two conservative fields, so I do not know why Omnibus is so gung ho on it.  It is positioned sideways, so gravity is not a factor, only magnetic force is (well, and the hairdryer).  Omnibus is so desperate for any validation, he will cling even to an obvious scam until the bitter end.  To him, the video is prima facie evidence that now needs to be disproved beyond all doubt, which is of course impossible, since any failure can be easily explained by the screws not being correctly placed, etc.

[Pirate88179]

@ Shruggedatlas:

Exactly!!!!

Bill

PS  I repeat, I mean no disrespect to Omnibus.  This is nothing personal here.  We are expressing our opinions based upon our knowledge in this area.  If new evidence arrises, I know I will look at it as will others.

Bill

[Omnibus]

@ Omnibus:

With all due respect sir, and I do respect your knowledge of physics, you keep touting Xpensiv's device as an example.  I totally disagree.  I think this device was a fraud from the word go. (Please feel free to check all of my posts on the matter)  A lot of others here agree.  My replication attempts, as well as many others, have shown this to be "true".  Please show evidence that we are all wrong.  He is gone so he is of no help here.  I have seen nothing, I repeat, nothing that "demonstrates" that this was not a fraud.  Show us something that overturns this and I will apologize to him. Until then, I remain hopeful, but not encouraged.

Bill

In the latest posts the accent was on SMOT. There must be absolutely no doubt that SMOT violates CoE, this has been proven beyond doubt and no time should be wasted on repeating the same debate. The debate concerning SMOT is over. SMOT is violating CoE.Period. End of story.

As it concerns the application of that violation of CoE in a practical device producing excess energy continuously (a device which will inevitably be constructed), I agree, there's still more to be done. It is a well known fact that many times reproducing results is not an easy task. Sometimes one cannot reproduce even his or her own results. This is the experience of every instructor teaching labs, for instance. Sometimes even most trivial canned experiments cannot be readily reproduced for one reason or another let alone something that is far from trivial. Sometimes it takes years to reproduce results and this is a common experience of any researcher in any experimental science. I can show you instances where completely inconsistent results from various research groups have existed for decades, published in most prestigious journals, at that concerning phenomena of much lesser importance than this one. Of course, many here are not interested in science but want something practical that can immediately take care of their energy bills piling up each month. Now, that's something we're very far away from at this point and anyone expecting an easy solution to such a problem shouldn't attend this discussion. Those of us, however, who are interested in the scientific aspect know that the study is far from over and the fact that some still haven't had success in reproducing it in the short period from the time @xpenzif showed it, up until now, by no means gives us grounds to give up let alone label it as fraud. This problem is in the process of study and every lack of patience only ruins the creative atmosphere and contributes nothing to the process of studying the phenomenon.