DEBATE THREAD

[psychopath]

You read what you want to see.  My point is this:

The Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy is (1) a toy without much benefit of overunity and (2) not a proof of a violation of the 1st Law.

The idea that things once thought impossible that presently work isn't a case for any impossibility you care to cite.  In other words just because some crackpots were finally vindicated is no reason to think every crackpot should or will be.  Further in other words no crackpot was ever vindicated without some sound proof or reason to think otherwise.

Every time you fail to specifically quote something I've said and deal with an exact objection as opposed to the vague generalizations you often fall into I'll ignore you.



Bessler007

Every time I quoted you, I copy pasted your words and wrapped it up in quotation marks.

Your "fact" said that if anyone finds proof for violation of CoE that they must be a liar. This is clearly implying that CoE is absolute, and you didn't object to that.

The Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy is (1) a toy without much benefit of overunity and (2) not a proof of a violation of the 1st Law.

I never said it was, but I said that just because it isn't of much benefit, doesn't mean it isn't over unity. Like omnibus said, you don't need a working free perpetual motion machine to violate CoE!

You seem to misunderstand the point I am making. I have never said and never will say that the smot provides free energy until I am absolutely convinced that it is, with heaps of proof.

What I HAVE been saying is that you cannot totally dismiss the smot, simply because many people have failed or simply because you have absolute faith in mainstream science.

[psychopath]

Here is an interesting paper on the tapping of Zero Point Energy.
http://www.innoventek.com/BassReZPET020406.pdf

The counter view to the funding side of things is the example of Tesla and Westinghouse. Westinghouse withdrew funding because what Tesla was making would not make him money.

Exactly, people only fund things if there is money involved!

[hansvonlieven]

I didn't imply any other definition, I meant that it is funny to see that you have been trying to achieve perpetual motion for 4 years yet you are somehow completely convinced that CoE is absolute.

The impossibility of a CoE violation and the idea of a functioning perpetuum mobile are not mutually exclusive. Even with today's knowledge the co-existence of both is quite possible, if not probable.

All CoE says is that you cannot create or destroy energy. The idea is very old. The first recorded instance is from Parmenides (510-450 BC).

The popular Latin version of his famous statement is: Ex nihilo nihil fit. (Out of nothing comes nothing) This is CoE in a nutshell.

Quite simply put, since a something cannot come from a nothing, a something cannot turn into a nothing. A something therefore can never disappear though it can and does change form. That is all CoE says.

In other words, the totality of all matter and energy in the universe is continually re-cycled.

All we have to do is to hook a machine into this cycle and we will have perpetual motion.

We have not learned how to do this.

Hans von Lieven

[Omnibus]

I didn't imply any other definition, I meant that it is funny to see that you have been trying to achieve perpetual motion for 4 years yet you are somehow completely convinced that CoE is absolute.

The impossibility of a CoE violation and the idea of a functioning perpetuum mobile are not mutually exclusive. Even with today's knowledge the co-existence of both is quite possible, if not probable.

All CoE says is that you cannot create or destroy energy. The idea is very old. The first recorded instance is from Parmenides (510-450 BC).

The popular Latin version of his famous statement is: Ex nihilo nihil fit. (Out of nothing comes nothing) This is CoE in a nutshell.

Quite simply put, since a something cannot come from a nothing, a something cannot turn into a nothing. A something therefore can never disappear though it can and does change form. That is all CoE says.

In other words, the totality of all matter and energy in the universe is continually re-cycled.

All we have to do is to hook a machine into this cycle and we will have perpetual motion.

We have not learned how to do this.

Hans von Lieven

Absolutely not. The impossibility of a CoE violation and the idea of a functioning perpetuum mobile are mutually exclusive although, as explained many times, existence of a working perpetuum mobile is not a condition for the violation of CoE. CoE may be violated without ever having a perpetuum mobile in existence. The opposite isn?t possible, however. In other words, CoE must be violated for a perpetuum mobile to exist. Energy from nothing must be produced for a perpetuum mobile to exist. A machine tapping existing energy from any source isn?t perpetuum mobile.

Therefore, the really important achievement is to ensure conditions for overunity, not so much for obtaining of free energy. Producing energy from nothing (overunity) is the substantial goal in the endeavors under discussion here. Obtaining free energy (other than energy out of nothing), although quite tempting in a practical sense, is foreseeable and in many ways trivial since it concerns tapping into already existing energy sources.

What is really interesting is that it has already been proven that CoE can be violated (by producing energy out of nothing (excess energy)). As explained many times, the only necessary and sufficient criterion for CoE to be obeyed is to have the same amount of energy out than in, in a closed loop, and nothing else. SMOT, however, does not obey this criterion because if it did then the only energy that stands to be transformed back into other energies upon closing the loop is the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted to it. Thus, if CoE were to be obeyed in SMOT the absolute value of energy in |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| imparted to raise the ball from A to B will exactly equal the absolute value of the energy out |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| to move the ball back at A and thus close the loop. This isn?t the case in SMOT, however. In SMOT the absolute value of energy in |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| imparted to the ball differs from the absolute value of the energy |(mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc)| the ball stands to convert in other energies upon its return back at A, thus closing the loop. This difference in the energy in and energy out in SMOT is in clear violation of CoE.

Again, the said violation of CoE leading to the production of excess energy has nothing to do with whether or not that excess energy can be utilized for practical purposes, especially whether or not a functioning perpetuum mobile can be constructed. Constructing of a perpetuum mobile is a separate, purely engineering, applied problem which may or may not be solved but that will not affect the rigorous proof that CoE can be violated.

[tinu]

The smot debate was settling down anyway...

Lol! I wish it was!