DEBATE THREAD

[psychopath]

@pshycopath. To disprove that SMOT violates CoE, the math should be done right, by basing it on correct conditions. Omnibus has only prooven that the ball firstly is placed incorrectly in point B, secondly that the ball takes a detour which takes respectively longer time to go back to point A. No exess energy is proven yet. Cheers

Stop repeating this nonsense. Repeating it won't make it true. Energy balance of such machines isn't time-dependent as you incorrectly understand and placing it at B is a fact which cannot be disputed. Violation of CoE by SMOT is proven beyond doubt.

No, you're wrong - VERY wrong. It's indeed time depended - as you should know quite well yourself. Virtually you're just standing in front of a steep hill, and are placing the ball at some point beyond the very top of it, so it don't roll the same way back to level A where you are standing. Then the ball are using more time and longer distance by rolling downhill, less steep, on a detour - lets imagine it's a spiral track - downhill till it finally reach level A where you are standing, using your own energy to put the ball back beyound the top of the hill again.

So one of the important points is in fact that YOU decides where B are suppose to be, and you got blind by the mysterious incident, and surprised why the ball didn't roll directly back from B to A. You simply don't see that the ball is placed by YOUR hand. YOU decide where it should be, and YOU have decided that the very natural action, that the ball OFCOURSE selects the least resistant way back to A, is caused by some mysterious supply of energy, coming from nowhere. THE EXCESS ENERGY COMES FROM YOUR OWN HAND, BY YOUR OWN DECISION OF POINT B!!!

GOT IT??

I repeat this "nonsense" because it's already true, and you know it more than very well.

Cheers

I'm confused. Why have it so that you have to move the ball to the starting point rather than let the ball move to that point directly? Do you mean the starting point is a little uphill? But then why not have the starting point as lowest as possible, level with the height of the position where the ball falls, so that the ball doesn't have to go uphill? I'm just confused

[Bessler007]

• Many attempts have been made to use magnetism to overcome conservation of energy, without success. No perpetual motion machines have ever been demonstrated to actually function.

It might be helpful to see an analysis of the Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy with every iota of energy in the system to establish once and for all if it does indeed violate the 1st Law but really it would be a moot point of the smot.

They can machine and level with lasers yet inspite of the high degree of accuracy in manufacturing, no one has been able to engineer an analog computer (actual model) that would demonstrate the proof.

The expense of a working model producing 2 or 3 nat's butts in energy would hardly justify building it.  If CoE were violated it would prove perpetual motion but it would have to be more than a proof before they would scrap the 1st Law; there would need to be model built.



Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

[Omnibus]

• Many attempts have been made to use magnetism to overcome conservation of energy, without success. No perpetual motion machines have ever been demonstrated to actually function.

It might be helpful to see an analysis of the Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy with every iota of energy in the system to establish once and for all if it does indeed violate the 1st Law but really it would be a moot point of the smot.

They can machine and level with lasers yet inspite of the high degree of accuracy in manufacturing, no one has been able to engineer an analog computer (actual model) that would demonstrate the proof.

The expense of a working model producing 2 or 3 nat's butts in energy would hardly justify building it.  If CoE were violated it would prove perpetual motion but it would have to be more than a proof before they would scrap the 1st Law; there would need to be model built.



Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

You don't get it, do you? Why bother posting opinions, then?

[Bessler007]

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.

[Omnibus]

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

No, you, you don't get it. Never mind me, never mind everybody else. You're wrong and you should get over it. Try to learn and understand rather than fill the forum with your confusion.