Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[shruggedatlas]

Now, this is exactly where your confusion stems from. Read very carefully what I explained once again and see if you can get it.

I think we are in agreement, we were just using different terms.  I know that Naudin places the balls at the exact same spot in both tests.  In the control (Input Drop), he just lets it drop from the bottom of the ramp, with the magnets spread out to allow this to happen.  In the actual experiment (Output Drop) with the magnets in classical position, he places the ball, lets go, and allows the ball to ascend the ramp, from where it drops from the top of the ramp directly into the tube.

So I will again ask.  Can we repeat Naudin's experiment exactly, with the minor difference that instead of spreading the magnets apart during the "Input Drop", we remove them altogether?  And would this be conclusive proof one way or the other whether the SMOT is overunity, meaning conclusive in both directions?

If this is not acceptable, what is the difference between moving them apart and taking them away during the Input Drop that suddenly makes the test invalid?

[rice]

hey omnibus
why dont you build and see for yourself
then put this one to bed

[Omnibus]

Now, this is exactly where your confusion stems from. Read very carefully what I explained once again and see if you can get it.

I think we are in agreement, we were just using different terms.  I know that Naudin places the balls at the exact same spot in both tests.  In the control (Input Drop), he just lets it drop from the bottom of the ramp, with the magnets spread out to allow this to happen.  In the actual experiment (Output Drop) with the magnets in classical position, he places the ball, lets go, and allows the ball to ascend the ramp, from where it drops from the top of the ramp directly into the tube.

So I will again ask.  Can we repeat Naudin's experiment exactly, with the minor difference that instead of spreading the magnets apart during the "Input Drop", we remove them altogether?  And would this be conclusive proof one way or the other whether the SMOT is overunity, meaning conclusive in both directions?

If this is not acceptable, what is the difference between moving them apart and taking them away during the Input Drop that suddenly makes the test invalid?

As I already explained, we can do that but it isn't necessary for the purposes at hand--seeing whether or not CoE is violated. It is, as this particular experiment proves. The conclusion is drawn perfectly with what we already have, demonstrated in Naudin's video. If you have nothing else to do and like to carry out experiments you may do all kinds of variations of this experiments but none of them will undo what's observed here and won't show otherwise, that is, that CoE isn't violated. Therefore, it's a useless pursuit for the purposes of this discussion.

[Omnibus]

The best experiment, as I've already said, which proves conclusively that SMOT violates CoE and deals in one stroke with some little ridiculous "objections" (not even touched in our discussion here), is the closed A-B-C-A loop experiment. If you really like to do experiments which definitively prove violation of CoE, that's the experiment for you. It's also simpler than Naudin's.

[shruggedatlas]

As I already explained, we can do that but it isn't necessary for the purposes at hand--seeing whether or not CoE is violated. It is, as this particular experiment proves. The conclusion is drawn perfectly with what we already have, demonstrated in Naudin's video. If you have nothing else to do and like to carry out experiments you may do all kinds of variations of this experiments but none of them will undo what's observed here and won't show otherwise, that is, that CoE isn't violated. Therefore, it's a useless pursuit for the purposes of this discussion.

First, the objection to Naudin's experiment is that magnets were moved apart but still present during the Input Drop.  This is a very valid point, and seeing as you yourself have no objection to removing the magnets during the Input Drop, I think it would be worthwhile to run it again.  I will not debate you on whether or not the magnets SHOULD make a difference, because I suspect this will be a long endeavor, so let's leave it at me not being satisfied and there being no harm in doing the test again.

Second, it is intellectually dishonest for you to claim that no further testing can invalidate Naudin's test.  Suppose we ran this test again 1000 times and got the opposite results every time?  Suppose he made a simple mistake somewhere (the magnets during the input drop DO make a difference, etc.)?  We do not even have a video anymore, just his word on what happened.  If you care about the truth, you should embrace further testing, because it can validate your position beyond all doubt.

Third, I do not agree with the A-B-C-A experiment being the "best."  I think it is ridiculous to use a human hand in a procedure, because the energy expended cannot be precisely measured this way.  I will not even attempt to argue that one with you, because if the 4000 posts on the Steorn forum were not enough, I know my puny attempts will not even dent you.  So let's just agree to disagree on that one.  Luckily, we do have a procedure we can agree on - Naudin's - so let's just use that.

I really cannot understand your reluctance to rerun (or have someone else rerun) Naudin.  Heck, if you did it yourself (without magnets on the Input Drop) and recorded it, I would consider it pretty persuasive proof of violation of CoE.  I think everyone else would too.  I cannot understand why you would not care about this, unless of course you fear the results, which I suspect is the case.  At any rate, I am not placing any burden on you to do anything.  I can do it.  I just need your confirmation on whether the proposed test (given sufficient peer review) will be a definitive test, a confirmation that you fear to give, though you provide no reasoning as to why except that Naudin's test is all you need.  This is not good science.