Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[Omnibus]

@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)

Yes, I do agree with that. And that's exactly why the @gaby de Wilde device pushed again here doesn't produce excess energy.

[Omnibus]

@acp,

Notice, the experiment you propose can b done only if you have lifted the ball. With magnet the energy imparted to the ball will be less (as will be with magnet the energy ball loses upon return, as in the half-experiment you propose). No excess energy produced, that is, no violation of CoE here.

[shruggedatlas]

Guys, I do not think all of you grasp the intricacy of Omnibus's position.  This is why we all keep proposing tests that he will not accept.

According to him, the magic starts after you place the ball at the SMOT entrance, and the magic ends before the ball leaves the influence of the SMOT.  Look, just think of the SMOT as a black box.  You add the black box to any device.  The black box does not improve the device in any way (in fact, it hurts efficiency a bit, but do not worry about that part), in that energy coming out of it does not exceed energy coming in, but rest assured that what happens inside the black box violates known laws of CoE as we know them and is possibly an overunity situation.

The reason I qualify the "overunity" part is because Omnibus claims that the ball loses more energy than it could have possibly gained.  So while there is a violation of CoE, it is not possible to extract this excess energy, because the energy is not there to be extracted - it is there to be consumed by the ball in law-defying fashion.  Yes, the ball defies the law of CoE by swallowing up energy it was not supposed to even have.  So, there is a violation of CoE resulting in an impossible-to-explain underunity situation.

I hope this clears it up for everyone.  Whenever you consider responding, always think about whether you are referring to what is inside the black box or not.  If you are not discussing the inside of the black box, you are polluting this thread with sillyness, wasting Stefan's precious bandwidth in the process.

[Omnibus]

@shrugedatlas,

These same thoughts and approach are applied to the trivial experiments used in high school to demonstrated obeying of CoE claiming it's definitive. As we see it's not. Same approach applied to one particular experiment discussed here (based on one very particular overlaying of conservative fields) reveals that there are exceptions and CoE must not be considered as a general principle.

[shruggedatlas]

@shrugedatlas,

These same thoughts and approach are applied to the trivial experiments used in high school to demonstrated obeying of CoE claiming it's definitive. As we see it's not. Same approach applied to one particular experiment discussed here (based on one very particular overlaying of conservative fields) reveals that there are exceptions and CoE must not be considered as a general principle.

And here is an illustration for those who do not get it.  You guys are all thinking too macro.  Think micro.  You have to get inside the SMOT, and then things will become clear.  The reason we do not get excess energy, is that we are not operating in the SMOT frame, and we are not able to do this because we cannot exist solely inside the SMOT.

In the below scenario, there would be free abundant energy on this planet.  The Earth itself is the ball in the SMOT.  God lifts it from A to B.  During the ascent from B to C (which takes, let's say, 8 billion years), energy is free and boundless.  Bessler wheels are built by toddlers.  Cars do not need accelerator pedals, but only brakes.  You get the idea.  But then, after the 8 billion years, God has to reset the system.