DEBATE THREAD

[psychopath]

It is not opinion you're the only one in the world that "gets it".  You are the only person on the face of the earth that "knows" CoE is violated by a SMOT.  lol

Even the inventor didn't get it.  He calls it an "Overunity Toy".  It isn't a closed loop.  Even if the energy imparted to the ball by the magnets would cause the ball to return to the level it began from, there would be no violation of the 1st Law.  The energy for it to happen would be supplied by the the magnets in the same manner the wind provides the energy to move a sail boat.

You are wrong.  Get over it.


Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ


The most a Simple Magnetic

Overunity

Toy could prove is the principle of Overunity.  That already has been proven.

I'm sorry but you are trying to find an excuse for CoE to be valid in the event that a looped smot is built. According to current day knowledge, magnetism is a conservative force, which means you cannot gain energy from magnets.

So, if a looped smot is built, then at least some part of current day physics is wrong. Either, CoE is violated or magnetism is not a conservative force after all.

So please stay logical, and stop trying to find

excuses

[Bessler007]

psychopath,

I stipulated, "Even if ....".  That's a very big if in the face of an idea that's been around since 1977.  It's an even bigger if in the face of the conservative nature of both gravity and magnetism.

I would take it a step further.  Even if gravity or magnetism aren't conservative it doesn't appear the smot will supply the proof.  So far it hasn't.

I can see your point that if any presently thought conservative force (ie gravity, springs, etc) could produce more energy than was stored in them then it would mean energy could be created.  That would be the death of the 1st Law.

I'll give you the point that if magnetism in combination with gravity isn't conservative then the 1st law isn't valid.  Do you have a proof?


Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

edit:  The 1st law has reality making all the excuses it needs.  It doesn't need my help.  I'd suggest you misunderstood what I said.

[Omnibus]

@Bessler007,

Of course, I have a definitive proof that the two conservative fields, magnetic and gravitational, if properly overlaid as in SMOT violate CoE. I have shown that proof numerous times, including in this thread. You?d do better to read and think rather than insult me with ad hominem attacks, ignoring my arguments without any grounds.

And, by the way, the idea isn?t around since 1977 but is centuries old, first expressed by Johannes Taisnierus in 1579 and maybe even earlier.

Study, think and restrain from cluttering the forum with confused opinions.

[Bessler007]

psychopath,

The SMOT is a pendulum action where the ball falls into a magnetic field then out of it with the assistance of gravity.  Any energy the ball gains by magnetism is lost when gravity pulls it out of the magnetism.  With gravity's assistance the ball repays the magnet for the energy it added to it, less friction and other losses.

This is interesting.  A series of magnets add to the kinetic energy of the ball and gravity only has to overcome the magnetism of the final (few?) magnets.  Even at that there isn't sufficient energy in the ball to return to the gravitational potential it left from.

I think even as an overunity device the SMOT is a poor example.

Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

[Omnibus]

psychopath,

The SMOT is a pendulum action where the ball falls into a magnetic field then out of it with the assistance of gravity.  Any energy the ball gains by magnetism is lost when gravity pulls it out of the magnetism.  With gravity's assistance the ball repays the magnet for the energy it added to it, less friction and other losses.

This is interesting.  A series of magnets add to the kinetic energy of the ball and gravity only has to overcome the magnetism of the final (few?) magnets.  Even at that there isn't sufficient energy in the ball to return to the gravitational potential it left from.

I think even as an overunity device the SMOT is a poor example.

Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

This is an ad hominem attack.

Stop insulting me by ignoring my argument without any basis and substituting it by complete nonsense.

SMOT isn't a pendulum. In SMOT, according to the analysis I present, the input energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) imparted to the ball is less than the energy which the ball loses when it returns to its initial state. This is a clear violation of CoE. This argument you must not ignore and if you continue to ignore it I'd ask Stefan to ban you for continuous ad hominem attack. This is too much.