Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[klicUK]

I was referring specifically to the claim for Newton's third law violation. Whether or not more energy is obtained than the input is a separate discussion.

What is demonstrated is that when swaying the pendulum the other side of the lever starts moving up and down. On the other hand, when moving up and down that other part of lever doesn't cause swaying of the pendulum. This is claimed to be an apparent violation of the Newtons third law. Whether or not there's indeed such violation hasn't been understood well yet. Like I said, a proposal for the forward problem has already been given. No analytical solution exists yet of the reverse problem. I really mean analytical solution--writing the proper differential equation and solving it and not just expressing hunches (I don't mean what you did but what others have expressed both positively or negatively).

ahhh - got you.

[shruggedatlas]

@shruggedatlas,

Scientific truth is never established by voting. Consensus plays absolutely no role in establishing scientific truth because Science is a totalitarian system where truth is the dictator.

You feeling that I do not account for the magnetic pull on the ball by the magnet as it begins to drop is wrong. Read my analysis and try to understand it before expressing feelings. Science is not about feelings but is about logic and reason.

The likeness with SMOT here comes from the proper overlapping of conservative fields. In SMOT the properly overlapping conservative fields are of different kind, in this case the type of fields is the same.

OK, I have a serious question, then.  If the SMOT is overunity, i.e. produces excess energy from nothing, what happens to this excess energy?  Where does it go?  There is clearly not enough left over to even do something as menial as get the ball back to the starting point, so it must get spent somewhere.

I understand your position that extracting excess energy from the SMOT is an engineering problem, and I am not asking you to solve it.  I am asking you to account for where this excess energy ends up.  I think this is critical if you want others to accept your theory, and you must have some interest in this, if you want the above engineering problem solved.  Thanks in advance.

[Omnibus]

@shruggedatlas,

It isn?t true that it is critical for the acceptance of my analysis or of any analysis for that matter to account for where the excess energy ends up, let alone it?s more than obvious where it ends up. For instance, excess kinetic energy in the present rendition of SMOT ends up as heat.

It must be clearly emphasized, however, that even in its present form the excess energy produced in SMOT is practically usable although its use isn?t as convenient as it would be upon a skilful engineering solution whereby it can be produced continuously (SMOT in its present form, treated in my analysis, only produces excess energy discontinuously). So far, the closest engineering solution for a SMOT producing excess energy continuously is that proposed by @xpenzif (except for Finsrud?s maybe). Of course, setting up a working SMOT, as the one I analyzed, not to speak about @xpenzif?s, needs a lot of fine tuning and isn?t as easy as it may seem. I wouldn?t be surprised if @xpenzif himself is unable to reproduce his own creation as I haven?t always been able to reproduce the simple device I?ve analyzed. Those of the participants here who teach labs, let alone those who work towards their PhD?s know exactly what I mean. Sometimes the most trivial and well-understood lab cannot be reproduced properly, especially when one is under pressure.

[Mr.Entropy]

What is demonstrated is that when swaying the pendulum the other side of the lever starts moving up and down. On the other hand, when moving up and down that other part of lever doesn't cause swaying of the pendulum.

I believe that this part of the video is, disappointingly, a deception.

It is true that moving the lever will not start the pendulum moving, but it can certainly keep the pendulum moving and increase the amplitude of its oscillations if it is moving already.  In other words, adding work at the lever does store it in the moving pendulum, and taking it out at the lever does remove it from the moving pendulum.

I expect that he knows this, otherwise he would not have made sure the pendulum was still before moving the lever.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

P.S.  You would know this too, if you were physics professor, as some claim.  Do you, yourself, claim to be a physics professor, Omnibus?

[Omnibus]

What is demonstrated is that when swaying the pendulum the other side of the lever starts moving up and down. On the other hand, when moving up and down that other part of lever doesn't cause swaying of the pendulum.

I believe that this part of the video is, disappointingly, a deception.

It is true that moving the lever will not start the pendulum moving, but it can certainly keep the pendulum moving and increase the amplitude of its oscillations if it is moving already.  In other words, adding work at the lever does store it in the moving pendulum, and taking it out at the lever does remove it from the moving pendulum.

I expect that he knows this, otherwise he would not have made sure the pendulum was still before moving the lever.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

P.S.  You would know this too, if you were physics professor, as some claim.  Do you, yourself, claim to be a physics professor, Omnibus?

I have visited Mr. Veljko Milkovic personally in Novi Sad, Serbia this Summer and I have done the experiment I mentioned myself. Before asking inadequate questions first know what you're talking about.