DEBATE THREAD

[Bessler007]

I think that's the most significant evidence the SMOT doesn't violate the 1st Law.

• As a series of magnets add energy to the ball raising it within a gravitational field, the final state of that kinetic energy as the ball falls within a gravitational field only has to overcome the final few magnets in that series.  It doesn't have to overcome all the magnets that added to its energy.

Even with the clear addition of free energy to the ball it can't return to where it came from just wrt to gravity and close the loop.


Bessler007


ps:  Omnibusted, I have yet to attack you with ad hominen.  You are wrong again.  lol.  It must suck to be you.

[Omnibus]

I think that's the most significant evidence the SMOT doesn't violate the 1st Law.

• As a series of magnets add energy to the ball raising it within a gravitational field, the final state of that kinetic energy as the ball falls within a gravitational field only has to overcome the final few magnets in that series.  It doesn't have to overcome all the magnets that added to its energy.

Even with the clear addition of free energy to the ball it can't return to where it came from just wrt to gravity and close the loop.


Bessler007


ps:  Omnibusted, I have yet to attack you with ad hominen.  You are wrong again.  lol.  It must suck to be you.

What you're saying is complete nonsense. Stop ignoring my argument incurring in this way a personal attack at me. Stop the ad hominem attack or this is gonna become ugly. This is a warning.

[Bessler007]

psychopath,

Even if the smot could operate in a closed loop (although that seems to be an impossible engineering feat) the ball receives free energy from magnets not unlike the analogy of a sailboat receiving free energy from the wind.

The conservative nature of magnetism isn't a factor in as much as the ball doesn't have to overcome all the magnetism that adds to its energy.

The SMOT is most likely the poorest example of overunity in its use of that free energy available from that open loop.


Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

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

[Omnibus]

@Bessler007,

This is a personal insult to ignore my argument and substitute it with utter stupidity such as the one contained in your last posting to @psychopath.

It is impossible for the magnet to impart spontaneously magnetic potential energy to the ball, a fact you choose to ignore, and yet it happens in SMOT. That can only be due to the appearance of energy out of no source (energy out of nothing, excess energy). That energy which has appeared out of no source makes it possible for the ball to have at C more energy that can be converted in other energies upon the ball?s return at its initial position than the energy imparted to the ball. This is in clear violation of CoE.

As for the sailboat, the source of the energy of a sailboat is known?the wind. Unlike the source for the excess energy in SMOT?there is no source for the excess energy in SMOT. Therefore, the analogy you give with a sailboat is incorrect.

You have no dignity and self-respect continuing to dirty the discussion with your stupidity while ignoring the real argument. Stop this ad hominem attack.

[acp]

This has to be the funniest thread in a long time