DEBATE THREAD

[Omnibus]

On another note, it should be well understood that violation of CoE is not about extracting of energy a someone here wants to present it, trying to invoke also logic, if you can believe it. Just the opposite, violation of CoE is exactly not about extracting energy but is about appearance of energy out of nothing, out of no source. SMOT is the easiest way to understand that. One can see there that a particular ,favorable superposition of two conservative fields makes it so that the forces of these fields can move a mass through a distance in such a way so that the net outcome is gain of energy (more energy out than in). The basis for understanding this is to make a distinction between force and energy, a distinction many here just don't realize exists.

A deeper understanding of what energy is goes beyond the usual definition of energy based only on the 'transformation' part of CoE, that is, beyond the definition that 'energy is the ability to do work'. That definition relies only on the previous availability of some finite quantity that would transform into another quantity--that's the 'transformation' part of CoE and it isn't violated, by SMOT including. A deeper understanding of what energy is includes the realization that energy is the very expression of motion and that motion is achieved through the action of force which isn't energy. Thus, when saying 'obtaining energy out of nothing' doesn't mean that there hasn't been force. On the contrary, especially due to the existence of force, more specifically, especially due to the existence of particular superposition of force fields one create motion whose expression is through energy, at that energy coming out of no source.

[Omnibus]

All this is untrue. Also, to join the choir of other incompetent amateurs here isn't something one can be proud of.

I am not proud, but come on, at least 2 and 4 you cannot argue with.

No, you're wrong on that too. Technical demonstration has been presented and usability isn't a criterion for whether or not CoE is violated.

[Omnibus]

Even if someone does build a self sustaining closed system SMOT this is still no proof that CoE has been violated. The most someone could say is that there is an energy input from an unknown source.

Until we know ALL forms of energy that exist in the universe no violation of CoE can be proven.

We are a long way from recognising and measuring all forms of energy that exist. There are still any number of things out there in this immensity that surrounds us that we have no knowledge of.

Hans von Lieven

No, if a device taps energy from an existing source that device isn't a perpetuum mobile. One may think it is but once the energy source is identified the device cannot be pronounced any more as perpetuum mobile. Violation of CoE, the basis for perpetuum mobile, requires no energy source whatsoever.

[hansvonlieven]

Violation of CoE, the basis for perpetuum mobile, requires no energy source whatsoever.

Do you ever listen to yourself?

Probably not, or you would not be uttering such complete nonsense.

Hans von Lieven

[Omnibus]

Violation of CoE, the basis for perpetuum mobile, requires no energy source whatsoever.

Do you ever listen to yourself?

Probably not, or you would not be uttering such complete nonsense.

Hans von Lieven

No, you're the one uttering complete nonsense by connecting violation CoE with a source which the device has to tap energy from. Hear it loud and clear, there mustn't be any existing energy source driving the device to claim that device is violating CoE. The energy driving the device must come out of no source. You are confused about the nature of violation of CoE and need to read more carefully and try to understand the references you cite (Helmholtz).