Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

[lancaIV]

E(Gesamt)=mcv2+mv(v2)/2,this shows us the magnetic-ball-"gun" slowly!

Imagine electric current like magnet-balls !
+Electric-current transformer-cycle +magnet-cycle

Look to the invention of a japanese named Kango IIda (Hydraulic Converter),
left direction+ right direction wheel concentration=effect ?
"Energy is not destroyable" ergo-logo accumulative !!!

Sincerely
? ? ? ? ? ? de Lanca

[berferd]

If indeed what you're saying is true then there is nothing to Wesley Snyder's motor. It would be trivial and would not deserve attention.

What I'm saying is true.  And Snyder's 'motor' is trivial.

However, I'm not inclined to believe that what you're saying is the case. Not only because I don't see the described hand motions in Snyder's video http://overunity.com/snyder/snyder_magnetmotor02.avi but, more importantly, because of your description of what a SMOT does.

You don't see the hand motion in the video???  Yes, it's subtle, but you can see it.  And look at how much the thing swings at times!

I don't know what SMOT you have in mind but the SMOT that is widely known does something completely different from what you describe.

SMOTs come in many different flavors.  All are intended to appear like perpetual motion machines, and the good ones can fool real scientists upon first glance.

Unlike what you describe, a SMOT demonstrates a real periodical production of excess energy.

Actually, the magnet in the SMOT you describe acts like a spring, which you "compress" when you place the ball in its initial position, with this "spring" pushing the ball up the ramp when you release it.

Indeed, suppose we have the ball at a position underneath the device. Call it the initial position.

When lifting the ball to place it at the input of the device we spend a certain amount of work. Once placed at the input of the device the magnetic field of the SMOT magnets lifts the ball spontaneously up the ramp. Spontaneously (without us spending any work for that).

But two sentences before that you said that you spend a certain amount of work placing the ball at the input.

At the end of the ramp the ball is at a greater height than its height was at the input. In other words, at the end of the ramp the ball has greater potential energy than its potential energy it had at the input of the ramp. Now read this carefully - the greater potential energy the ball has at the end of the ramp compared to its potential energy at the input has been acquired free, spontaneously, without us spending any work for that purpose.

But you are neglecting the work you expended placing the ball into its initial position, where you converted the mechanical energy from your muscles into magnetic potential energy (which in turn gets converted into kinetic and gravitational potential energy of the ball).

Springs appear to create free energy if you ignore the work you do to compress them.

At the end of the ramp, the steel ball falls under the action of its own weight to its initial position. Recall the initial position was the position underneath the device where the experiment was started. In doing so (returning to the initial position) the steel ball recovers the energy which was spent by us to place it at the input of the device and in addition gives us as a "present" the energy it has acquired when the magnetic field lifted it to the end of the ramp. Again, for this excess energy, for this "present" we have spent no energy, we have paid nothing.

Now we can again lift the ball to place it at the input of the device and once again let the ball go through the whole above described process until it again falls back to its initial position. Thus, another portion of excess energy will be produced. We will be given another energy "present" for which we have paid nothing.

In one sentence you say the ball falls by itself to its initial position, recovering the energy spent to place it at the input.  And in a following sentence you say that after it falls you can "again lift the ball to place it at the input of the device and once again let the ball go through the whole above described process".

So, if the ball falls back to its initial position, why is it necessary for you to pick it up and place it into its initial position to execute another cycle?

Answer: the ball does not fall back to its initial position.

This isn't a trivial detail.  If it truly were overunity, you would not need to do work on the ball to start another cycle.  It would be able to cycle itself.

We can go on and on in obtaining these energy "presents" (for which we have paid nothing) periodically until we feel like doing it.

Therefore, your opinion that the SMOT does not produce excess energy is incorrect. On the contrary, SMOT is a device which does produce periodically excess energy.

Your SMOT does not produce excess energy.  You "compress a spring" by placing the ball into its initial position.  The "spring" then pushes the ball up the ramp.

And to run it another cycle you need need to "compress the spring" again by picking up the ball and placing it into its initial position.

Again, the need to manually place the ball back into its initial position is not a trivial detail.  The work you do in doing so is what makes the ball move up the ramp.

I have explained this before in this same discussion group. Obviously, I had to do it again.

Too bad you don't understand how the device works.

Of course, it will be interesting to apply the above principle in technically cleverly built device so that this production of excess energy would become continuous (and not periodic as in the SMOT). This a trivial, engineering pursuit which would utilize a proven concept of production of excess energy. Of course, a lot of engineering ingenuity is required in achieving this goal and anyone who achieves it should be valued highly.

Funny how these ball & ramp SMOTs have been around for decades, yet nobody has ever been able to accomplish that "trivial engineering pursuit" of getting the ball to wind up at its initial position by itself so it cycles by itself.

That's because it's impossible.  You are deluding yourself by thinking that where the ball winds up is equivalent to where the ball started.  Again, if the ending position of the ball was absolutely equivalent to the starting position, there would be no need to manually move the ball to execute another cycle.

For the first time, direct demonstration of continuous production of excess energy was done recently by Wesley Snyder.

Snyder showed nothing of the sort.  The video simply showed somebody holding a rotor levitated by magnets, and making it spin through subtle hand motions.

I do agree, however, that one more step is needed to announce it as a historic event - Wesley Snyder has to show the self-sustaining motor suspended on a stand with no involvement of the experimenter whatsoever so that even the most enthusiastic critics can be silenced forever. I understand that they are working on that and it will be shown soon (in the matter of days or couple of weeks, at most). It should be noted, however, that even if Wesley Snyder does not succeed in this final engineering effort, the production of excess energy by the SMOT will still be a real phenomenon.

Don't hold your breath.  I predict Snyder will crawl back under the rug just like Sprain.

[Omnibus]

If indeed what you're saying is true then there is nothing to Wesley Snyder's motor. It would be trivial and would not deserve attention.

What I'm saying is true.  And Snyder's 'motor' is trivial.

This is an opinion supported by nothing. People utter opinions but it does not mean that all their opinions express truth.

However, I'm not inclined to believe that what you're saying is the case. Not only because I don't see the described hand motions in Snyder's video http://overunity.com/snyder/snyder_magnetmotor02.avi but, more importantly, because of your description of what a SMOT does.

You don't see the hand motion in the video???  Yes, it's subtle, but you can see it.  And look at how much the thing swings at times!

No, you?re imagining things.

Of course, as I said Wesley Snyder must demonstrate the turning of the rotor without holding the device in his hand. This is the only way enthusiastic critics like you could be silenced.

I don't know what SMOT you have in mind but the SMOT that is widely known does something completely different from what you describe.

SMOTs come in many different flavors.  All are intended to appear like perpetual motion machines, and the good ones can fool real scientists upon first g

Not at all, SMOT doesn?t come in different flavors. SMOT is a device shown here http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm. Someone may be fooled by analyzing the SMOT but a good scientist won?t.

Unlike what you describe, a SMOT demonstrates a real periodical production of excess energy.

Actually, the magnet in the SMOT you describe acts like a spring, which you "compress" when you place the ball in its initial position, with this "spring" pushing the ball up the ramp when you release it.

No, the SMOT I describe does not act like a spring. The energy I have put in to place the ball at the input, lifting it from the initial position, is returned when the ball gets back into the initial position at which I also get an additional excess energy (which I call ?present?) for which I have not spent energy. The ?present? is due to the spontaneous lifting the ball along the ramp by the magnetic field, for which I have done no work.

Indeed, suppose we have the ball at a position underneath the device. Call it the initial position.

When lifting the ball to place it at the input of the device we spend a certain amount of work. Once placed at the input of the device the magnetic field of the SMOT magnets lifts the ball spontaneously up the ramp. Spontaneously (without us spending any work for that).

But two sentences before that you said that you spend a certain amount of work placing the ball at the input.

You have misunderstood what I said. Read what I said again. Read carefully, because otherwise one may think that in order to make a point you deliberately change the meaning of what has been said,

At the end of the ramp the ball is at a greater height than its height was at the input. In other words, at the end of the ramp the ball has greater potential energy than its potential energy it had at the input of the ramp. Now read this carefully - the greater potential energy the ball has at the end of the ramp compared to its potential energy at the input has been acquired free, spontaneously, without us spending any work for that purpose.

But you are neglecting the work you expended placing the ball into its initial position, where you converted the mechanical energy from your muscles into magnetic potential energy (which in turn gets converted into kinetic and gravitational potential energy of the ball).

Springs appear to create free energy if you ignore the work you do to compress them.

First of all, understand what ?initial position? means. Initial position, as I said twice in the text, is the position underneath the device where the ball gets spontaneously after every cycle. The ball gets there spontaneously. I don?t spend energy to place it there.

I have spent energy initially to assemble the apparatus, to fix the magnets and the ramp and all the rest of the nitty-gritty, including the very first placing of the ball at the said initial position. Once the apparatus is assembled, however, I never again do any work to fix magnets, ramp, nitty-gritty, including placing the ball at the initial position.

Once I assemble the apparatus I, however, may do the described experiment thousand, million times,over and over again, each time getting an energy ?present?.

Read more carefully my explanation and then comment.

At the end of the ramp, the steel ball falls under the action of its own weight to its initial position. Recall the initial position was the position underneath the device where the experiment was started. In doing so (returning to the initial position) the steel ball recovers the energy which was spent by us to place it at the input of the device and in addition gives us as a "present" the energy it has acquired when the magnetic field lifted it to the end of the ramp. Again, for this excess energy, for this "present" we have spent no energy, we have paid nothing.

Now we can again lift the ball to place it at the input of the device and once again let the ball go through the whole above described process until it again falls back to its initial position. Thus, another portion of excess energy will be produced. We will be given another energy "present" for which we have paid nothing.

In one sentence you say the ball falls by itself to its initial position, recovering the energy spent to place it at the input.  And in a following sentence you say that after it falls you can "again lift the ball to place it at the input of the device and once again let the ball go through the whole above described process".

So, if the ball falls back to its initial position, why is it necessary for you to pick it up and place it into its initial position to execute another cycle?

Answer: the ball does not fall back to its initial position.

This isn't a trivial detail.  If it truly were overunity, you would not need to do work on the ball to start another cycle.  It would be able to cycle itself.

I say more than what you have quoted me to have said. Read more carefully what I say and don?t misquote me.

I said not only that when the ball falls back to its initial position (yes, it does fall back to its initial position ? understand first how SMOT works and then try to comment) the energy I spent to place it at the input of the device is fully recovered but also I said that an additional energy ?present? is also obtained due to the additional potential energy which was imparted to the ball when the magnets spontaneously lifted it up the ramp. Additional energy ?present? is also obtained ...

Read carefully what I say and then comment. Don?t try to misquote me or change the meaning of what I have said.

We can go on and on in obtaining these energy "presents" (for which we have paid nothing) periodically until we feel like doing it.

Therefore, your opinion that the SMOT does not produce excess energy is incorrect. On the contrary, SMOT is a device which does produce periodically excess energy.

Your SMOT does not produce excess energy.  You "compress a spring" by placing the ball into its initial position.  The "spring" then pushes the ball up the ramp.

And to run it another cycle you need need to "compress the spring" again by picking up the ball and placing it into its initial position.

Again, the need to manually place the ball back into its initial position is not a trivial detail.  The work you do in doing so is what makes the ball move up the ramp.

On the contrary, my analysis shows that SMOT is producing excess energy periodically but, as evident from what you said in this post, you don?t understand how.

Again ? in addition to ?compressing the spring? when I place the ball from its initial position to the input of the device, there is an additional energy ?present? which I get (returned to me when the ball finally gets back at its initial position) due to the spontaneous lifting of the ball up the ramp as a result of the magnetic field and thus spontaneously imparting on it potential energy for which I have paid nothing.

You don?t understand this and before you do don?t try to place commentaries relying on changing the meaning of what I have explained.

I have explained this before in this same discussion group. Obviously, I had to do it again.

Too bad you don't understand how the device works.

On the contrary. As is evident from your post, you are the one who does not understand how the device works.

Of course, it will be interesting to apply the above principle in technically cleverly built device so that this production of excess energy would become continuous (and not periodic as in the SMOT). This a trivial, engineering pursuit which would utilize a proven concept of production of excess energy. Of course, a lot of engineering ingenuity is required in achieving this goal and anyone who achieves it should be valued highly.

Funny how these ball & ramp SMOTs have been around for decades, yet nobody has ever been able to accomplish that "trivial engineering pursuit" of getting the ball to wind up at its initial position by itself so it cycles by itself.

That's because it's impossible.  You are deluding yourself by thinking that where the ball winds up is equivalent to where the ball started.  Again, if the ending position of the ball was absolutely equivalent to the starting position, there would be no need to manually move the ball to execute another cycle.

The fact that no one has so far been able to apply the concept in an engineering design cannot be used as an argument against the validity of the principle. You don?t understand how scientific method works and what the viable scientific arguments are when analyzing an effect.

Because of that, the statement you make ?That's because it's impossible? is frivolous. Anybody can utter anything. It?s a free country. The statements that cut the mustard, however, are only those which are based on the scientific method. As I said, your statements are not.

Again, the ball at the initial position (read again in my text what is meant under ?initial position?) has exactly the same state after every cycle. States of the ball at the initial position after every cycle are equivalent. The ball gets to the initial position spontaneously after each cycle.

The need to bring the ball manually from the initial position to the input of the device is required by the engineering design of this particular device (the SMOT). As I said, however, this energy spent is more than recovered when the ball gets back at the initial position ? not only the energy to bring the ball from the initial position to the input is recovered but also an additional energy ?present? is obtained.

For the first time, direct demonstration of continuous production of excess energy was done recently by Wesley Snyder.

Snyder showed nothing of the sort.  The video simply showed somebody holding a rotor levitated by magnets, and making it spin through subtle hand motions.

On the contrary, Snyder did show in the video directly continuous production of excess energy. Your claim that he didn?t, based on alleged motion of his hands, is frivolous and, therefore, should be ignored.

[berferd]

Again, the ball at the initial position (read again in my text what is meant under ?initial position?) has exactly the same state after every cycle. States of the ball at the initial position after every cycle are equivalent. The ball gets to the initial position spontaneously after each cycle.

The need to bring the ball manually from the initial position to the input of the device is required by the engineering design of this particular device (the SMOT). As I said, however, this energy spent is more than recovered when the ball gets back at the initial position ? not only the energy to bring the ball from the initial position to the input is recovered but also an additional energy ?present? is obtained.

I guess I don't get it.  If repeating the cycle requires you to take the ball from the "final initial position" and place it back in the "initial initial position", I don't see how these two positions are equivalent.

Seems to me, if the two positions were absolutely equivalent, they would be one and the same, and subsequent cycles would go by themselves.

[Omnibus]

Again, the ball at the initial position (read again in my text what is meant under ?initial position?) has exactly the same state after every cycle. States of the ball at the initial position after every cycle are equivalent. The ball gets to the initial position spontaneously after each cycle.

The need to bring the ball manually from the initial position to the input of the device is required by the engineering design of this particular device (the SMOT). As I said, however, this energy spent is more than recovered when the ball gets back at the initial position ? not only the energy to bring the ball from the initial position to the input is recovered but also an additional energy ?present? is obtained.

I guess I don't get it.  If repeating the cycle requires you to take the ball from the "final initial position" and place it back in the "initial initial position", I don't see how these two positions are equivalent.

Seems to me, if the two positions were absolutely equivalent, they would be one and the same, and subsequent cycles would go by themselves.

No, obviously, you don?t get it.

To understand it, don?t invent positions such as ?initial initial position? and ?final initial position?. Read my explanation and don?t invent things.

As I explained, initial position is the position of the ball underneath the device. After manually picking the ball up from there, placing the ball at the input of the device (initial position is not the input of the device), raising the ball up the ramp spontaneously by the magnetic field and spontaneous fall of the ball when it reaches the end of the ramp, the ball goes back underneath the device.

Recall, the position of the ball underneath the device is its initial position ? equivalent to the position it had underneath the device before we started the first cycle.

We may then carry out a second cycle (lift the ball from initial position manually  -> place it at the input of the device -> magnetic field raises spontaneously the ball up the ramp -> spontaneous fall from end of ramp -> initial position underneath the device).

We can then carry out the cycle a third time ...

and so on ...

Every time (after every cycle) the ball always falls back underneath the device where, recall, its initial position is. This initial position of the ball after every cycle is entirely equivalent to its initial position after any cycle.

The beauty of the whole thing is that when the ball gets back to its initial position (always one and the same) after every cycle we are given a ?present?, a portion of energy for which we have spent no work, we have paid nothing.