Big try at gravity wheel

[Grimer]

Grimer what facts lead you to the conclusion that anyone has ever built a working permanent magnet powered motor?  That dark video that you linked just shows a motor.  What proves that it or any other machine ever constituted a working "magnetic motor"?

Tell me Mark. Do you know what's under the cover of "that dark video"? Would you like to know? Aren't you curious?


Because I know.   


(of course if you're a sock puppet then you do know already 

Edit: He's around chaps - coz he's just posted. Let's see if he answers.



2nd Edit: Well it's beddy byes time here in England - So Mark's got all night to think about a clever answer.

[MarkE]

MarkE .. IIRC, HER is claiming to have found 'efficiency differences' between the upstroke & downstroke cycles, leading to a COP > 1, IINM.

This descriptive is interesting in itself, as they acknowledge that there is no OU, but that the ordinary system energy losses can be mitigated by different technology use at certain stages - and the combined result is excess useable mechanical output energy greater than the input energy.

How this is not COP > 1 I am not sure.

They were also adamant IIRC that environmental heat energy [or air pressure, for example] did not enter or leave the closed system as part of the Carnot Cycle re: adiabatic warming & isothermal cooling legs, etc.

FWIW my impression at the time was that the technology wasn't claimed to be OU or PM or contravene the known Laws of Physics - yet could somehow output more energy than input energy required, but didn't use any environmental energy input to supplement conservative gravity - perhaps my recollection has faded over the lapsed time period [I know my interest has] so don't take it as gospel.

Fletcher,  if presented with a black box that supplies energy there are two options:

1) The energy supply from the box is finite, limited to the potential energy stored within the box.
2) The box conveys energy beyond potential stored within it from an external source.

Storing energy in buoyancy is tantamount to storing energy in the lifted height of the working fluid.  That energy density is really low.  A fairly massive 5m * 5m * 5m machine can only cycle about 4kWh pushing water around.  If compressed air is used, then cycling between 1 bar and bicycle tire pressure of 100psi would best that by about 8X.

Given no statement of working principle, all credibility rests on the testing by an independent party like Mark Dansie.  Those tests just keep getting indefinitely postponed.

[MarkE]

Tell me Mark. Do you know what's under the cover of "that dark video"? Would you like to know? Aren't you curious?


Because I know.   


(of course if you're a sock puppet then you do know already 

Edit: He's around chaps - coz he's just posted. Let's see if he answers.



2nd Edit: Well it's beddy byes time here in England - So Mark's got all night to think about a clever answer.

The video shows a motor. 

If you want to argue that there is something special about the motor in that video, then by all means present your argument and supporting evidence.

[AB Hammer]

As far as I know. There are no videos of the machine being tested for any smaller test units either. The only way I can see this thing working is if someone figured out the secrets of Coral Castle. Maybe that is what is in the black box.

Alan

[fletcher]

Fletcher,  if presented with a black box that supplies energy there are two options:

1) The energy supply from the box is finite, limited to the potential energy stored within the box.
2) The box conveys energy beyond potential stored within it from an external source.

.. snip ..

Given no statement of working principle, all credibility rests on the testing by an independent party like Mark Dansie.  Those tests just keep getting indefinitely postponed.

Yes, 'preaching to the converted' I'm afraid, & one who uses the same arguments ;7)

Failing options 1) & 2) it seems to only leave that gravity is not a conservative force [see your independent testing required comments].

My recollections were to draw attention to a very apparent red flag contradiction - how can a machine, no matter how smartly arranged or contrived to reduce energy losses to a bare minimum , that doesn't consume fuel or use an environmental effect, but does exist it a gravity environment, output surplus energy over requirements to run itself ?

Yet, this same machine doesn't break any Laws of Physics [Archimedes Law of Levers; CoE; CoM; CoAM; Laws of Thermodynamics] which also surmise that gravity is a field of acceleration resulting in a conservative force - if gravity force is not conservative then it is very likely that the Laws of Physics need a rethink & rewrite, so it seems impossible to have one without the other - but IIRC that was not their position - perhaps the task of stitching it all together coherently is very problematic & above most pay grades - see independent verification required, before unleashing the math hounds ;7)