"Pious Fraud"

[Omnibus]

I tried to show Omnibus why the SMOT isn't overunity and exactly why you must manually place the ball at the "input" each time you want it to go, (check out the "Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it" thread) but obviously it went right over his head.

Some people go through life mystified by the simplest things.  It's kind of frustrating to see that degree of failure in our educational system.

Don?t transfer your problems onto others. You have already been shown where your errors are. Read that thread carefully again and think. Start with your graph. For instance, notice that gravitational potential energy changes when moving the ball from C (?initial position? ? which is under the SMOT) to B (?input to the device?), unlike what your graph shows.

You don?t get this and never will. Give it up.

One wonders how people like you making such blatant mistakes dare teach others.


P.S. Stefan, I?d like to note that I?m in no way trying to continue the flame wars. While I agree that they should be stopped, however, I have no other choice but to respond to these ridiculous statements.

[Velakand]

>> No SMOT has, or ever will, close the loop.

> Closing the loop doesn?t matter. The SMOT produces excess energy periodically.


Really? Prove it.


>>Looking for some elusive "special arrangement" that will produce energy from permanent magnets is futile.

>No, you?re wrong.

Wow, great answer!  Some proof might be nice.


>Wesley Snyder produces excess energy from permanent magnets not to speak of Walter Torbay. Walter Torbay?s motor produces
> excess energy with his magnetic motor big time.

I asked for references for these two ... please supply.
I'm not expecting to see anything worth looking at, however, since the phrases "excess energy" and "permanent magnets" occurring in the same sentence is a classical indication of the amateur delusional garden-shed fiddler.


>>In a conservative field, the detailed configuration of any device is irrelevant. It is fighting geometry. You may as well try to make a
>>quadrilateral whose interior angles do not add up to 360 degrees.

>No, that is not the case. Your comparison is wrong.

Wow!!!!!  Another great answer!!  How do you think them up?

If you could only realise that by understanding this analogy you would see very clearly that all magnetic over-unity devices are doomed to failure.  The actual details of the devices are irrelevant when understood from this higher perspective.


>>Anyone who can clearly DEMONSTRATE any device that continuously produces energy purely from permanent magnets should take
>>it to James Randi and claim their million dollars.

>James Randy should be ready with his money. Where exactly can one claim James Randy?s million dollars?

Even though I gave you the right spelling, you still manage to mis-spell the guy's name!

You can "claim" the million dollars at www.randi.org ... the snag is that you will need to have an operating over-unity device.

For any over-unity-device owners in the U.K. ....  show me your working device and I will personally pay your air fare to America to go see James Randi and claim the prize.

[Velakand]

No SMOT has, or ever will, close the loop.

You're trying to get across a scientific idea to someone who is arguing from a religious position.

I tried to show Omnibus why the SMOT isn't overunity and exactly why you must manually place the ball at the "input" each time you want it to go, (check out the "Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it" thread) but obviously it went right over his head.

Some people go through life mystified by the simplest things.? It's kind of frustrating to see that degree of failure in our educational system.

Berferd, I have just been reading the thread that you mentioned above.  You posted some excellent, clear explanations of why SMOTs are not over unity.
Your sentences such as this;
"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",
show that you have a clear understanding of the situation.  However, as you said, it is well nigh impossible to force scientific understanding into the heads of those arguing from a quasi-religious position.

[Omnibus]

>> No SMOT has, or ever will, close the loop.

> Closing the loop doesn?t matter. The SMOT produces excess energy periodically.


Really? Prove it.

What am I supposed to prove?

>>Looking for some elusive "special arrangement" that will produce energy from permanent magnets is futile.

>No, you?re wrong.

Wow, great answer!  Some proof might be nice.

Again, you?re wrong. You want proof, here it is ? Snyder?s and Torbay?s devices. Hope that?s enough proof.

>Wesley Snyder produces excess energy from permanent magnets not to speak of Walter Torbay. Walter Torbay?s motor produces
> excess energy with his magnetic motor big time.

I asked for references for these two ... please supply.
I'm not expecting to see anything worth looking at, however, since the phrases "excess energy" and "permanent magnets" occurring in the same sentence is a classical indication of the amateur delusional garden-shed fiddler.

Refences for these two are abundant. For instance, follow the latest threads in this forum.

As far as your impressions about ?excess energy? and ?permanent motors? you may retain them for your own consumption. Don?t impse your misunderstanding on others.

>>In a conservative field, the detailed configuration of any device is irrelevant. It is fighting geometry. You may as well try to make a
>>quadrilateral whose interior angles do not add up to 360 degrees.

>No, that is not the case. Your comparison is wrong.

Wow!!!!!  Another great answer!!  How do you think them up?

If you could only realise that by understanding this analogy you would see very clearly that all magnetic over-unity devices are doomed to failure.  The actual details of the devices are irrelevant when understood from this higher perspective.

No, you are the one to understand that the analogy you offer is a wrong analogy. The difference between a fact that interior angles of a quadrilateral always add up to 360 degrees and the principles of thermodynamics is only for a trained scientist to discern, which you obviously are not. Every scientist worth his salt will tell you that the principles of thermodynamics have a purely empirical basis. We have accepted them because the experience so far has indicated so. No one knows what the experience in the future may indicate in, say, some special cases. In that sense these principles (that?s why they usually are called principles and not laws) are relative truths. The truth concerning the mentioned sum of the angles of the quadrilateral is an absolute truth in the standard geometry (the geometry studied, say, in the secondary school).

>>Anyone who can clearly DEMONSTRATE any device that continuously produces energy purely from permanent magnets should take
>>it to James Randi and claim their million dollars.

>James Randy should be ready with his money. Where exactly can one claim James Randy?s million dollars?

Even though I gave you the right spelling, you still manage to mis-spell the guy's name!

You can "claim" the million dollars at www.randi.org ... the snag is that you will need to have an operating over-unity device.

Aha, because you?re lacking arguments you?re obviously scrambling for spelling mistakes. O, joy, you found one.

Besides, I will personally see to it that James Randi writes a 1,000,000 check to Torbay. The site you gave www.randi.org doesn?t seem to offer a reward for overunity devices. Please verify whether there?s indeed a million dollar challenge by Randi for an overunity device.

For any over-unity-device owners in the U.K. ....  show me your working device and I will personally pay your air fare to America to go see James Randi and claim the prize.

Torbay is not an over-unity-device owner in the UK, can he, nevertheless, apply for the air fare to see Randi?

[Velakand]

By the way, I have covered some of this ground before in the following article that I wrote for the U.K. Skeptics ...

http://www.web41000.clarahost.co.uk/permanent-mag-nuts.htm

The article includes my offer to pay the air fare to James Randi in America for any geniune U.K. over-unity inventors.