Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

[FredWalter]

The Electrocharger (Sigmaautomotive) is the only not direct overunity-related
technology

Please explain why you believe their battery charger is 'overunity-related technology'.

all other named patents-numbers/companies are really overunity-related,
with each of them I can construct a closed-cycle-system
Impulse-Motor-Generator-outputunit recycling as Impulse

Since you don't own any of their motors, how can you claim to construct 'a closed-cycle-system' with their motors?

How can you say with any confidence that their products are 'overunity-related'?

[lancaIV]

Only because own solid-physical experiments,based with connection
of motor/generator,Transformer-modulations,Trafo-Magnet-integration,
"Rust-Trinitymotor"-technics comparision and...,and....;

Not only "overunity.com"-reader/commentator,also self-made searcher !

Sincerely
? ? ? ? ? ? de Lanca

[berferd]

At the expense of "magnetic potential energy"? What on earth is this?

It's as important as the gravitational potential energy in analyzing the SMOT. Your failure to consider it is the precise reason you and Omnibus think the device produces excess energy. When you consider this term, you see that the device behaves in accordance with all known physical laws and it's obvious that it does *not* produce excess energy. Such failure to consider all the relevant issues is at the heart of most free energy schemes.

Consider gravitational potential energy. This is an object's potential energy due to the gravitational field of the earth. Defining the surface of the earth as our datum, an object has zero gravitational potential energy at the surface. At any location above the surface, the object has gravitational potential energy. Moving down and up is the same as moving toward and away from the earth. The greater the distance (the higher the object) the greater the gravitational potential energy.

Magnetic potential energy is exactly analogous to gravitational potential energy. It is an object's potential energy due to the magnetic field of another object, such as a permanent magnet. Defining our datum as the point where the object (ball) is in contact with the permanent magnet, the magnetic potential energy is zero when the ball is in contact with the magnet. At any distance from the magnet, the ball has magnetic potential energy. The greater the distance, the greater the magnetic potential energy. In short: moving toward and away from the earth decreases and increases an object's gravitational potential energy. Moving toward and away from a permanent magnet decreases and increases a steel ball's magnetic potential energy.

There is no energy expended allowing the ball to roll back to the start.

You are neglecting the magnetic potential energy. Note that because of the way the magnets are angled, the ball in the final position (Omnibus' "initial position") is closer to the magnets that at the starting position (Omnibus' "input"). This means the magnetic potential is lower than at the starting position. To get from the final position to the starting position, you need to raise the ball's magnetic potential energy back to it's starting value. It is this adverse potential gradient that prevents the ball from rolling back to the input by itself.

Contrary to Omnibus' claim, the starting and ending points of the process are *not* the same. You cannot ignore this issue without misleading yourself.

Look at the figure I've attached. On the vertical axis I plot gravitational potential energy. On the horizontal axis I plot magnetic potential energy. I also plot diagonal lines indicating the sum of the gravitational and magnetic potentials. Moving up and down on the graph is equivalent to moving further from and closer to the earth. Moving right and left on the graph is equivalent to moving further from and closer to the magnets. Moving along one of the diagonal lines is a lossless tradeoff between gravitational and magnetic potentials. ("Lossless" is unobtainable in the real world due to air resistance, hysteresis losses at the ball/ramp contact point, etc. It can be approached, but never reached or exceeded. So without any outside influence, any real world motion along one of the diagonal lines will actually trend slightly below the line as the second law of thermodynamics takes its cut of the energy.)

Point A indicates the starting point of the ball at the bottom of the lower end of the ramp (Omnibus' "input"). Point B indicates the top of the ramp. Point C indicates the final position of the ball, at the original elevation but under the raised end of the ramp (Omnibus' "initial position", which is really a misnomer because it's not where the ball starts out).

The ball rolls up the ramp because the magnetic force parallel to the ramp is greater than the component of gravitational force parallel to the ramp. The magnetic field does work on the ball to raise its gravitational potential. As the ball rolls up the ramp, its gravitational potential is rising, but its magnetic potential is falling (the magnets are angled so they're closer to the ball at the top of the ramp). When the ball rolls off the top end of the ramp, it falls because the vertical component of the gravitational force is greater than the vertical component of the magnetic force. As the ball falls, the gravitational field does work on it. In falling, the ball gets further from the magnets, so its magnetic potential increases. When the ball reaches the initial elevation, its gravitational potential is back to the level where it started. But since the ball in its final position is closer to the magnets than when it started out (again, note the magnets are angled), it is at a lower magnetic potential than when it started.

To get it to go again, you need to raise the ball's potential by picking it up and placing it at the "input". Since the two locations are at the same elevation, you are not increasing its gravitatonal potential. But you *are* increasing its magnetic potential because the "input" is further than the final position from the magnets.  Regardless of how much Omnibus disagrees, the ending point is at a lower combined gravitational/magnetic potential than the starting point.

Note that the SMOT could be arranged so that the ball falls completely away from the ramp and not just to its original elevation (say, off the edge of the table). This would raise the magnetic potental to a level higher than the starting point, but the gravitational potential would be significantly lower. To get the back to the input, you would need to raise its gravitational potential.

No matter what you do, the ball winds up at a lower combined potential than when it starts.

It is a matter of careful engineering. People (on Jlnlabs, I think) have connected two ramps together to get extra height, and therefore extra energy.

Refer to my graph: Points BB and CC indicate the states on a second ramp higher than the first. You can see that BB is indeed higher than B, but this is at the expense of even more magnetic potential energy. Along any real world path (such as A-B-C-BB-CC), no matter how convoluted, the combined gravitational/magnetic potential *always* decreases. (Note how the paths cut across the diagonal lines.) No matter how you arrange things, the ball will *always* wind up at a lower combined potential than when it started, and it will *always* require an outside influence (e.g. force from your hand) to raise it back to its starting potential so it can go again. This is exactly why nobody has ever succeeded in "close looping" these things.

The engineering problems are very fiddly and the speeds and positions of the components are crucial.

The "fiddliness" only determines how close points A and C are. In the real world, points A and C are always separate and distinct, and the combined gravitational/magnetic potential at point C is always less than at point A. As much as you and Omnibus would like to believe otherwise, points A and C are *not* the same. If they were and the ball had excess energy when arriving at the final position, it would be a "trivial engineering task" to arrange the device so the ball makes its way back to the input by itself. But, sadly, they are not the same and we're required to add energy to the system to get it to go again.

Suspend your disbelief, Berferd, unless you are scared of having your well ordered reality upset.

ROTFL! My "well ordered reality" is just fine. It's your "well ordered fantasy" that requires one to ignore important issues to create the impression that free energy is being created.

[Omnibus]

Many words, no substance:

At the expense of "magnetic potential energy"? What on earth is this?

It's as important as the gravitational potential energy in analyzing the SMOT. Your failure to consider it is the precise reason you and Omnibus think the device produces excess energy. When you consider this term, you see that the device behaves in accordance with all known physical laws and it's obvious that it does *not* produce excess energy. Such failure to consider all the relevant issues is at the heart of most free energy schemes.

Consider gravitational potential energy. This is an object's potential energy due to the gravitational field of the earth. Defining the surface of the earth as our datum, an object has zero gravitational potential energy at the surface. At any location above the surface, the object has gravitational potential energy. Moving down and up is the same as moving toward and away from the earth. The greater the distance (the higher the object) the greater the gravitational potential energy.

Magnetic potential energy is exactly analogous to gravitational potential energy. It is an object's potential energy due to the magnetic field of another object, such as a permanent magnet. Defining our datum as the point where the object (ball) is in contact with the permanent magnet, the magnetic potential energy is zero when the ball is in contact with the magnet. At any distance from the magnet, the ball has magnetic potential energy. The greater the distance, the greater the magnetic potential energy. In short: moving toward and away from the earth decreases and increases an object's gravitational potential energy. Moving toward and away from a permanent magnet decreases and increases a steel ball's magnetic potential energy.

I already answered this point. The above is taken into account in my analysis.

There is no energy expended allowing the ball to roll back to the start.

You are neglecting the magnetic potential energy. Note that because of the way the magnets are angled, the ball in the final position (Omnibus' "initial position") is closer to the magnets that at the starting position (Omnibus' "input").

Not so. To this day you couldn?t understand this. See my previous explanations. I?m not gonna repeat this over and over again because you don?t understand it.

This means the magnetic potential is lower than at the starting position. To get from the final position to the starting position, you need to raise the ball's magnetic potential energy back to it's starting value. It is this adverse potential gradient that prevents the ball from rolling back to the input by itself.

Not so. It is just the opposite. Furthermore, it is irrelevant in the final balance.

Contrary to Omnibus' claim, the starting and ending points of the process are *not* the same. You cannot ignore this issue without misleading yourself.

This is ridiculous. To this day you did not understand what we?re discussing. The cycle starts when the ball is at the initial position and ends when the ball is at that same initial position. I?ve told you this already at least five times. You don?t get it and I already doubt that you?ll ever get it (unless you?re deliberately confusing the issue to appear you have to say something).

Look at the figure I've attached. On the vertical axis I plot gravitational potential energy. On the horizontal axis I plot magnetic potential energy. I also plot diagonal lines indicating the sum of the gravitational and magnetic potentials. Moving up and down on the graph is equivalent to moving further from and closer to the earth. Moving right and left on the graph is equivalent to moving further from and closer to the magnets. Moving along one of the diagonal lines is a lossless tradeoff between gravitational and magnetic potentials. ("Lossless" is unobtainable in the real world due to air resistance, hysteresis losses at the ball/ramp contact point, etc. It can be approached, but never reached or exceeded. So without any outside influence, any real world motion along one of the diagonal lines will actually trend slightly below the line as the second law of thermodynamics takes its cut of the energy.)

Point A indicates the starting point of the ball at the bottom of the lower end of the ramp (Omnibus' "input"). Point B indicates the top of the ramp. Point C indicates the final position of the ball, at the original elevation but under the raised end of the ramp (Omnibus' "initial position", which is really a misnomer because it's not where the ball starts out).

The ball rolls up the ramp because the magnetic force parallel to the ramp is greater than the component of gravitational force parallel to the ramp. The magnetic field does work on the ball to raise its gravitational potential. As the ball rolls up the ramp, its gravitational potential is rising, but its magnetic potential is falling (the magnets are angled so they're closer to the ball at the top of the ramp). When the ball rolls off the top end of the ramp, it falls because the vertical component of the gravitational force is greater than the vertical component of the magnetic force. As the ball falls, the gravitational field does work on it. In falling, the ball gets further from the magnets, so its magnetic potential increases. When the ball reaches the initial elevation, its gravitational potential is back to the level where it started. But since the ball in its final position is closer to the magnets than when it started out (again, note the magnets are angled), it is at a lower magnetic potential than when it started.

To get it to go again, you need to raise the ball's potential by picking it up and placing it at the "input". Since the two locations are at the same elevation, you are not increasing its gravitatonal potential. But you *are* increasing its magnetic potential because the "input" is further than the final position from the magnets.  Regardless of how much Omnibus disagrees, the ending point is at a lower combined gravitational/magnetic potential than the starting point.

Note that the SMOT could be arranged so that the ball falls completely away from the ramp and not just to its original elevation (say, off the edge of the table). This would raise the magnetic potental to a level higher than the starting point, but the gravitational potential would be significantly lower. To get the back to the input, you would need to raise its gravitational potential.

No matter what you do, the ball winds up at a lower combined potential than when it starts.

This is a flawed explanation. The experiment (each cycle) starts and ends at point C and not the way you have described it. The way you have described it the ball doesn?t close the loop when it?s moving.

Besides, it is not true that in moving from point C (?initial position? -- which is under the SMOT) to point B (?input to the device?) the gravitational energy doesn?t change. Unlike what you?ve indicated, the ball gains potential energy because it is raised from point C to point A. Also. it is not true that the magnetic potential energy increases from point C to point A. Point A is closer to the magnet than point C, therefore, it is just the opposite to what you?ve written.

Suspend your disbelief, Berferd, unless you are scared of having your well ordered reality upset.

ROTFL! My "well ordered reality" is just fine. It's your "well ordered fantasy" that requires one to ignore important issues to create the impression that free energy is being created.

That?s nonsense. What your reality is is seen from your ?explanation?. It?s flawed.

Your explanation is flooded with problems. As a first step, correct the mentioned and other problems in your graph and, hopefully, you?ll understand why excess energy is produced (I?m not holding my breath, though).

[canam101]

Can anybody explain simply why he thinks the Sprain motor is overunity?

All he is doing is using an electro-magnet to counter the 'blocking' of the first magnet in his motor so that the rotor can get by it. Why would anybody think that this will result in overunity? You might as well give it a push with a stick.

The input/output measurements done so far involve such small amounts of energy that they aren't worth much.

I'd love to see the thing work, but if other such 'breakthroughs' are anything to go by, in four months, or whatever it is, when the big version of the motor is supposed to be demonstrated, there will be some reason that it can't be shown, and another dealine will be set, and that deadline will be missed, etc.

I don't know if Sprain is allowing people to invest in his motor, but I would not put one cent into it, going by what has been shown so far.