Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[rice]

WOW omnibus.
more and more you sound "out to lunch"
hans is correct. 
it is funny listening to someone like you who really does not know too much about anything

[acp]

Just the fact that Naudin moves the magnets to the side and doesn't remove them completely seems strange, they are bound to hinder the drop of the ball. It would have been a much more convincing test with the magnets completely removed for the comparison test.

[Omnibus]

WOW omnibus.
more and more you sound "out to lunch"
hans is correct. 
it is funny listening to someone like you who really does not know too much about anything

On the contrary, it is funny listening to someone like you.  Of course, Hans is not correct. How stupid is it to propose an experiment whereby the two fields pull the ball in the same direction and to expect to have excess energy produced. This is like once dropping the ball from height h and then dropping it from height 2h and claiming that the difference may have anything to do with excess energy. Or. having once a ceramic magnet attracted to the fridge and then having a neo attracted to the fridge from the same distance and claiming that in this way you're proving excess energy because in the second care a greater potential energy is lost.

As I said, stupidity such as that continuously expressed by the likes of Hans must be confronted vigorously because it further muddles the thinking of people with shaky understanding like you.

[Omnibus]

Just the fact that Naudin moves the magnets to the side and doesn't remove them completely seems strange, they are bound to hinder the drop of the ball. It would have been a much more convincing test with the magnets completely removed for the comparison test.

If he removes them,completely the result will be qualitatively the same. In both cases the energy imparted to the ball in the control experiment is greater than in the actual experiment. Moving the magnets to the side makes the energy imparted to the ball in the control experiment even closer to the energy imparted in the actual experiment (but still more than in the actual experiment). Nevertheless, the energy lost in the actual experiment is greater than the energy lost in the control experiment. This is in clear violation of CoE. I already explained that several times but who to read.

Naudin's is one of the experiments proving excess energy because in his experiment the two conservative fields are correctly aligned to produce excess energy and the control experiment is adequate. This thread need not be cluttered  with repeating discussions of experiments proposed by @gaby de Wilde and some others, because they have long been shown not to produce excess energy. The superpositions of conservative fields in them isn't proper to have excess energy produced.

The best experiment with properly aligned conservative fields proving the reality of excess energy beyond doubt is the one whereby the ball goes along the closed A-B-C-A loop. That experiment also deals with one stroke with little ridiculous objections such as the one suggested above.

[acp]

@omnibus,

would you agree that a steel ball dropped with no magnets near it, imparts more energy on impact than the same ball dropped from the same height with a magnet placed near it? ( the magnet being placed close enough as to have attraction, but not close enough to prevent gravity allowing the ball to drop)