Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[Pirate88179]

Here is what I have been working on which is kind of related to the screw device.  I have since modified my device and am trying several configurations.  This picture was taken a day or two ago.  I am experimenting in both attraction and repulsion.  The more I see and think about the screw device, the more I suspect we may have been dupped.  If that were my WORKING device, I would make a video, several videos using different techniques to eliminate anyone saying it was faked,up to and including suggestions from forum members. (cover with a fish bowl, sound, etc.)  I hope it is real because if not, a lot of time and effort have been wasted on the part of the forum members.

Bill

[eavogels]

As usual, I'm a very slow builder, but so far I'm building as planned.
/Eric

[Omnibus]

Here is what I have been working on which is kind of related to the screw device.  I have since modified my device and am trying several configurations.  This picture was taken a day or two ago.  I am experimenting in both attraction and repulsion.  The more I see and think about the screw device, the more I suspect we may have been dupped.  If that were my WORKING device, I would make a video, several videos using different techniques to eliminate anyone saying it was faked,up to and including suggestions from forum members. (cover with a fish bowl, sound, etc.)  I hope it is real because if not, a lot of time and effort have been wasted on the part of the forum members.

Bill

See, thing is, this is excruciatingly simple to replicate, it seems. Nothing like Torbay's and the like. Not to say that the principle goes exactly along the lines of already claimed devices. In addition, we already have the conclusive proof that CoE can be violated and therefore such devices must certainly exist. All these make this particular setup very tempting.

[pultimo]

There are a lot of reasons to think that it's a fake:
1) the "thing" works. Well, why not to patent it? You have solved the millennium puzzle  and the only thing you are capable of is to post a (poor) video on youtube? bah....
2) the video itself is poor with strange cuts and suspicious audio, as noted;
2.1) moreover, the author is unknown. We have the next Nobel prize and he's mute and unfaced, not a single word, of satisfaction at least, not a smile...nothing at all;
3) no "dirty tricks" are used in the device...and it's not a good thing. Magnets and their interactions are very well known. Pratically, I think that today virtually ALL possible combinations have been studied by official reserchers and passionate people and the scheme of the device is really simple and not new at all and none of them is working;
4) I repeat myself: that device cannot work: the magnet n?1 attracts the first screw and rotate the device until the screw is exactly in front of it. Now is the turn of the 2nd magnet which "feels" the 2nd screw and try to rotate the device BUT it needs to win the attraction force of the 1st magnet (now at maximum level) which has no intention to lose its screw...moreover, magnets are equal in force and it means that the attraction force of 2nd magnet is fewer than the 1st one 'cause its screw is more distant. Maybe you can cross the first screw via kinetic force but at every passage the residual force is  fewer and fewer....up to stop the device. It's the same problem of smot, tomi track and others magnetic devices: the final energy at every stage is ever less than the previous and at last the device stops.

Well, that's all.  Have a nice week-end

[Omnibus]

There are a lot of reasons to think that it's a fake:
1) the "thing" works. Well, why not to patent it? You have solved the millennium puzzle  and the only thing you are capable of is to post a (poor) video on youtube? bah....

Patenting it is the worst idea. Patenting of a device such as this is a useless pursuit. US Patent Office has granted numerous patents for perpetuum mobile?s. What?s the result? None. Why? Because no one has ever demonstrated them working. ?Demonstrated? that?s the ?open sesame?. What @xpenzif needs to do now, at that urgently, is to stay around here and instruct people how to replicate the device independently. Nothing else will be of any use to him. He soon may find he?s running out of time if he doesn?t do that.


?2) the video itself is poor with strange cuts and suspicious audio, as noted;?
That?s only in the eyes of the beholder. I find it OK. Would?ve been better if he?d allowed the device to run longer instead of touching it at the fourth or fifth revolution. Why he did that beats me. Of course, if I were him I?d pst more than one video of the running device.

2.1) moreover, the author is unknown. We have the next Nobel prize and he's mute and unfaced, not a single word, of satisfaction at least, not a smile...nothing at all;

No word of satisfaction because the author knows the job is still unfinished. An independent verification of his device is crucial. No prizes yet/

3) no "dirty tricks" are used in the device...and it's not a good thing. Magnets and their interactions are very well known. Pratically, I think that today virtually ALL possible combinations have been studied by official reserchers and passionate people and the scheme of the device is really simple and not new at all and none of them is working;

No, you can?t say that. At least this device is working. The video shows it.

4) I repeat myself: that device cannot work: the magnet n?1 attracts the first screw and rotate the device until the screw is exactly in front of it. Now is the turn of the 2nd magnet which "feels" the 2nd screw and try to rotate the device BUT it needs to win the attraction force of the 1st magnet (now at maximum level) which has no intention to lose its screw...moreover, magnets are equal in force and it means that the attraction force of 2nd magnet is fewer than the 1st one 'cause its screw is more distant.

You repeat it but what you repeat isn?t true. Unlike what you have incorrectly understood, SMOT does produce excess energy (energy from nothing) and that has already been proven rigorously.

It wins it when properly fine-tuned. What?s the problem? If there were no 2nd magnet, attraction towards the 1st magnet would be greater, wouldn?t it?

Maybe you can cross the first screw via kinetic force but at every passage the residual force is  fewer and fewer....up to stop the device. It's the same problem of smot, tomi track and others magnetic devices: the final energy at every stage is ever less than the previous and at last the device stops.

Not so. Whatever, you said about the crossing of first screw will apply to the second screw at the same measure. What happened at the first screw came about as a result of what happened at the zeroth screw (the screw before the first) and so on going backwards. Why would the ?residual force? as you put it be greater at the zeroth screw than at the 1st screw? Didn?t you say that the magnets ?are equal in force??