http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pious_fraud
I've only seen this phrase used in terms of supposed religous miracles, but I realized that it may be the explanation for
all these devices, claimed to work; and then later claimed to be replicated by one or two other people, and then fallen
out of interest as unworkable. (then, of course, the next one comes along, and this one's got to be the real thing!)
Why do they do it?
The reasoning goes like this: Suppose I have a non-functional device that I really believe should work, if only
it could be "perfected..." So, I say it is already working, publish plans and maybe even a faked video. Why? Because this will
strongly encourage many other people to try to get it to work, with their own variations and improvements, some of them with
access to better and more expensive materials than my own failed prototype, and maybe one of them will succeed where
I have failed.
This is a distinctly different motive from the typically assumed either-or-case- that the inventor is mistaken and confused, or that
they are a malicious fraud interested in parting fools from their money. Instead, you have a well-intentioned liar, who
desperately wants to see a free energy machine happen for everyone's good. I believe that I've seen cases where this was
happening, and there was more than one liar independently choosing this strategy to keep the interest and experimentation going-
even mutually reinforcing each other's beliefs that someone out there really had got it working.
Think about it, it could really explain a lot...
I think to dig into why discoveries are not made and people make more mistakes that wise things is counterproductive. In saying that, I should also add that in many occasions there seems to be a reluctance to get to the bottom of the problem. Most often one sees jumping from project to project without really finishing and getting definitive results in any one of these projects. One way this could be explained is that many of the enthusiasts, although technically skilled, do not have the systematic training necessary for quality scientific research. Of course, ultimately lack of scientific training wouldn?t matter if the results are good. This unfortunately doesn?t happen very often in the area of free energy research.
There is also the situation in which the truth is not believed.
I think this might be Paul Sprain's dilemma at the moment.
I think he is not working on Emilie now, because he has learned from Emilie how to do it better.
That's what I would do.
If testing a prototype results in knowledge, it is worth while to build and test the prototype.
If the prototype is unable to support the research, time to scrap it and build another.
If while testing a steam engine there is a small explosion of cleaning fluid inside the cylinder, and I learn from it, I might scrap the steam engine and start work on an internal combustion engine. The R&D process is sort of like that.
What if, in spite of all the well-intentioned lying (or non-well-intentioned) that others have done in the past, what is actually happening is as I have described above.
I think this is why countless basement experimenters have pursued overunity. One day someone will succeed, they believe.
Maybe this is what is happening now. Time will tell. I think we are seeing the beginning of the 21st century.
Tom Schum
Tom Schum
The Paul Sprain magnetic motor is a nice design. I have seen almost the identical design on Tom Beardon's web site. It is called the "Wankel" magnetic motor. Paul's motor seems to run fine, just a little slow, but if it has power (torque) it can make up for being slow (185 RPM no load or 95 RPM under simulated load).
I am glad to see a device that uses magnets and spins. I would wonder that if Paul were to mount on an axle 3 of his motors that are staggered so the sticky point is overcome by at least 2 other motors still gaining speed, on the same shaft, if he would need the electromagnet at all? It should add to the torque of the motor. I was suprised that the axial flux alternator that he put on his device only produced 3 watts max. Sounds like he didn't have something working right or the motor just doesn't have much torque?
<<I would wonder that if Paul were to mount on an axle 3 of his motors that are staggered so the sticky point is overcome by at least 2 other <<motors still gaining speed, on the same shaft, if he would need the electromagnet at all?
Adding extra arms or rotors makes NO difference;-
Each added arm gives more push during the accelerating
part of the track. BUT each added arm causes more drag at the
sticking point. Net result = NO change.
The reason for the second arm in Emilie is simply for balance ... a single arm rotor, being asymmetrical,
would wobble ... the second magnet on the rotor makes no difference whatsoever to the complete-cycle energy balance, which is NOT over-unity, and never will be.
Quote? which is NOT over-unity, and never will be.
That may or may not be true regarding Paul Sprain?s device. It is not true, however, with respect to SMOT, Wesley Snyder and Walter Torbay?s motors. They are overunity.
Sprain's motor is not over unity.
No SMOT has, or ever will, close the loop.
Looking for some elusive "special arrangement" that will produce energy from permanent magnets is futile. 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.
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.
Please give references / url's for the Snyder and Torbay motors.
QuoteNo SMOT has, or ever will, close the loop.
Closing the loop doesn?t matter. The SMOT produces excess energy periodically.
QuoteLooking for some elusive "special arrangement" that will produce energy from permanent magnets is futile.
No, you?re wrong. 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.
QuoteIn 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.
QuoteAnyone 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.
Please give references / url's for the Snyder and Torbay motors.
James Randy should be ready with his money. Where exactly can one claim James Randy?s million dollars? (This million will be just on the side; there are more important implications from these achievements.)
I think the problem is that most people labelling it as impossible are doing so soley under classical electrodynamics, so often a very old limited theory is trying to dictate practical.
So from that perspective you see a permanent magnet as not having any real energy output, ie .. a static forcefield in space.
Lets not forget that classical and even quantum cannot explain the source of the charge that maintains the dipole, so to state that permanent magnets or the vector potential have no directly useful energy to give in certain setups is short sighted to say the least, given that present physics cannot even explain the entire phenomena properly.
Quote from: Velakand on March 28, 2006, 04:27:32 PM
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.
QuoteI 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.
>> 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.
Quote from: berferd on March 28, 2006, 06:54:28 PM
Quote from: Velakand on March 28, 2006, 04:27:32 PM
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.
Quote>> 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?
Quote>>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.
Quote>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.
Quote>>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).
Quote>>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 (http://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.
QuoteFor 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?
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.
QuoteYour 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.
Above-cited sentences from Berferd are correct. This is not the problem in Berferd understanding of the particular SMOT device under discussion in this thread. Read carefully the discussion so far and, hopefully, you'll understand where Bereferd's problem is.
QuoteBy 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.
This article in view of the new developments (Snyder, Torbay) is obsolete.
Again, Torbay is not an over-unity-device owner in the UK, can he, nevertheless, apply for the air fare to see Randi?
>> 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. [/quote]
>This article in view of the new developments (Snyder, Torbay) is obsolete.
Roflmao. Another one-word refutation!
This "discussion" is now at an end as far as I'm concerned. I will not be reading or replying to you, as you are absolutely typical of the ignorant, confused, benighted, befuddled, impossible-to-get-through-to crackpots that I have encountered in the past. I know from previous experience that people like you will never, ever understand anything that people like myself or Berferd say. It goes straight over your head.
>>Again, Torbay is not an over-unity-device owner in the UK, can he, nevertheless, apply for the air fare to see Randi?
Of course not!! I live in the U.K. The whole point of my making this offer is so that nobody here in the U.K. can use the EXCUSE that they cannot take their over-unity device to America because they can't afford the air fare. They now have NO excuse ... show me the device and I will facilitate their trip to win a million dollars.
One last point;-
Doesn't it BOTHER YOU that people like James Randi, and myself, and many others such as Eric Krieg, are prepared to offer large sums of money to anyone who can simply demonstrate a working over-unity device using permanent magnets? WHY do you think we do this? WHY do you think we have the confidence that we will not lose our money? Answer; because we understand reality. You never will.
[/quote]
QuoteQuote>> 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.
>This article in view of the new developments (Snyder, Torbay) is obsolete.
Roflmao. Another one-word refutation!
This "discussion" is now at an end as far as I'm concerned. I will not be reading or replying to you, as you are absolutely typical of the ignorant, confused, benighted, befuddled, impossible-to-get-through-to crackpots that I have encountered in the past. I know from previous experience that people like you will never, ever understand anything that people like myself or Berferd say. It goes straight over your head.
Sure, yours is not one-word refutation but is a many-word nonsense. You think you can refute claims by talking nonsense. You?re misguided. Nonsense is nonsense and can never be a valid argument.
Quote>>Again, Torbay is not an over-unity-device owner in the UK, can he, nevertheless, apply for the air fare to see Randi?
Of course not!! I live in the U.K. The whole point of my making this offer is so that nobody here in the U.K. can use the EXCUSE that they cannot take their over-unity device to America because they can't afford the air fare. They now have NO excuse ... show me the device and I will facilitate their trip to win a million dollars.
It appears you?re not so sure in your conviction. If you're really sure, extend it to the whole world, if you?re right you?ll never part with your money.
QuoteOne last point;-
Doesn't it BOTHER YOU that people like James Randi, and myself, and many others such as Eric Krieg, are prepared to offer large sums of money to anyone who can simply demonstrate a working over-unity device using permanent magnets? WHY do you think we do this? WHY do you think we have the confidence that we will not lose our money? Answer; because we understand reality. You never will.
Not only that it doesn?t bother me but I?ll take them up on their offers. You seems to be backing off, though, despite the confidence you proclaim you have and despite your claim to understand reality. Go ahead, extend your offer to the whole world since you?re so confident. And don?t forget that there are witnesses in this forum,
>> Not only that it doesn?t bother me but I?ll take them up on their offers.
Emtpy words.
You will "take up" our offers?
Great.
When?
Where is your over-unity device?
Got any photos or videos?
I look forward to seeing your name in the Nobel Prizes list.
On the other hand ...
Have you seen the Museum of Unworkable Devices?
A long and futile history of ideas that never had a snowball's chance in hell of working.
Buh bye.
Quote>> Not only that it doesn?t bother me but I?ll take them up on their offers.
Emtpy words.
You will "take up" our offers?
Great.
When?
Where is your over-unity device?
Got any photos or videos?
I look forward to seeing your name in the Nobel Prizes list.
On the other hand ...
Have you seen the Museum of Unworkable Devices?
A long and futile history of ideas that never had a snowball's chance in hell of working.
Buh bye.
You watch ...
This is getting even more and more childish between all parties...
IF:
(1) You do NOT beleive that over-unity can ever be achieved, why would you even bother to post here?
-(a) you derive pleasure from "taunting" a believer
-(b) you feel you are "Helping" to "straighten-out" those who believe it CAN be achieved
-(c) you intentionally WANT to cause flames
-(d) insert your own self-serving reason
(2) You DO believe OU can be achieved, why would you waste time replying to someone from (1)?
-(a) you derive pleasure from "taunting" a non-believer
-(b) you feel you are "Helping" to "straighten-out" those who believe it CANNOT be achieved
-(c) you intentionally WANT to cause flames
-(d) insert your own self-serving reason
If you are posting here and do NOT believe OU can be achieved....I cannot help but think you are UNSURE, or at least curious about it being possible....why else would you "dabble" in what you call impossible? No logic in that.
My suggestion is simple. If you want to believe...go ahead...it's ok....but don't beat us up because you are not settled on the idea of OU...and please, do NOT feel that you have to come here and save us from our "sins" or guide us on the err's of our ways...we KNOW we err from tradition.
As a matter of fact, that is the ONLY un-explored land left...outside of the explainable.
Now my rant is over. Have a good day!
In the name of science nonsense should not be left alone. It should always be exposed. This is a matter of higher intellectual obligation.
This is the reason why misguided critics such as Velakand are being confronted in this thread. No one has invited them here to criticize. But once they pop up and start spewing their nonsense they should not be left unaccountable. Hope this will help you check the appropriate answer in your multiple choice questions.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 29, 2006, 04:37:16 PM
In the name of science nonsense should not be left alone. It should always be exposed. This is a matter of higher intellectual obligation.
Bingo.
mortgage (http://mortgage.pantyhose-net.com)
Quote from: berferd on March 29, 2006, 06:37:18 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 29, 2006, 04:37:16 PM
In the name of science nonsense should not be left alone. It should always be exposed. This is a matter of higher intellectual obligation.
Bingo.
So you agree that if conventional science is mistaken about something that it should be exposed..
What are we arguing about then?