Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[Qwert]

Quote:Reply #431 on: November 10, 2007, 11:41:51 PM  Posted by: Omnibus:

..."Like I said, so far, the most interesting device is the SMOT and its modifications by Finsrud and especially by @xpenzif since it is easily demonstrable, has no energy input whatsoever and is obviously self-sustaining. Everything else is more or less hearsay as of today."

Finally, I've found that famous (at least to some) SMOT link (page 21 on this forum). It's (almost) devine! It's divinity is in its LACK OF PERPENDICULLARITY BETWEEN THOSE TWO ROD MAGNETS, creating slightly V-shaped slot. The ball is placed on a track in the wider side V-shaped slot between those two not-quite-perpendicular rod magnets. And GO!!! Note that the path is relatively short (it cannot be narrowing into infinity). The ball is always pulled by gradually approaching magnets' ends and at end of track (the ball) drops out of the track. The inertia of the ball's mass is greater than magnets' pull at the moment of drop. That way it can go only to the end of the track.
How one can even compare this basic SMOT expriment to ready patent and already working machine (Troy Reed)?

[Omnibus]

What I am amazed by is how lightly Omnibus and supporters take this alleged violation of the laws of thermodynamics.  If the principle of CoE was violated, it would be the greatest breakthrough since . . . well it would be huge, let's leave it at that.  I admit I am not a trained scientist, but from what I remember in college, the basic order for scientific research goes something like this.  You state a hypothesis, and then you run experiments to support it.  When you have enough experimentation, you can conclude there is evidence to support your hypothesis, and then you can proceed to the next steps of drawing up a proper theory, validation by peers, etc.

Now you guys have this hypothesis that the SMOT violates the principle of CoE.  This is no small claim.  CoE has been established and confirmed through rigorous testing by untold thousands (millions?) of scientists over the years.  But that's fine - new things are discovered.  So you have this hypothesis that challenges everything we know, but what do you do?  You do not bother actually running any experiments that demonstrate excess energy being extracted from the closed system. 

At best, you run an experiment where you assist the device by using human energy to lift the ball part of the way.  But this does not demonstrate the overall overunity of the device, because you do not calculate exactly how much work the hand does on the way up.  There is more work than just lifting the ball - the hand also has to resist the magnetic pull from the SMOT ramps, and the pull is strongest from the center (not from point B), so there are questions left unaswered.  If the ball travelled directly on its own from C back to B, there would be no questions at all.

Heck, if you had a mechanical device lift the ball from A to B, we could at least measure the amount of energy this device was consuming.  Then, we could similarly measure how much energy the ball dropping from C creates and compare.  With a human hand, how can you measure?  Why would you use such a silly method as proof of your hypothesis.  It convinces no one except the gullible.

Then I come up with a reasonable question - what happens to the excess energy?  You guys say it is dissipated through heat and leave it at that.  How do you know it is all due to heat?  How hot does the ball really get rolling along a ramp?  Based on your equation, there should be quite a bit of excess energy, more than should be lost through the very minor friction of a smooth steel ball rolling on a ramp.  These things do not give you the slightest pause?  Not even the tiniest doubt?

I am not a scientist, but even I can see that this is not science.  This is conjecture.  To say that the SMOT "has been proven overunity beyond all doubt" borders on fraud.  There is plenty of doubt.  The honest thing to say is that you have a hypothesis that has yet to be proven.  No one would take issue with that.

@shruggedatlas,

Recall how this darn CoE was introduced in Science. Recall physician Mayer?s ?experiments? with the color of soldier?s blood. Even more interesting is the Helmholtz story. Another doctor (same as Mayer) just out of college, having nothing to do with physics braces himself to introduce the most general principle in Science. Based on what logic? Well, based on the fact that up to that moment no one has built a periodically working machine which can do work at the expense of no energy of any kind. What kind of logic is that? Ridiculous kind of logic, of course. And, rightfully so, his paper has never been accepted in a proper scientific journal. All we know about his ?findings? is from a talk he has given before some society. Certain powers that be, for obvious reasons, have liked and promoted this idea. Plain and simple. And now, what are we facing? We are facing the fact that there is such machine?a periodically working machine which can do work at the expense of no energy spent. Now what, then?

In addition, I am not at all certain that practical devices producing energy out of nothing haven?t been around in the past. We are told so but that may not be the case. As it is not the case that Einstein?s theory is anything else but a compilation of trivial errors. Propaganda of these matters is fierce and the real scientist and the person seeking the truth must be very, very careful not to sink in this propaganda pit. First thing to do is to educate himself or herself very carefully, be humble and not make any compromises with the truth.

Thus, because you have demonstrated obvious gaps in your knowledge of even the most elementary things in Physics, you are in no position to judge what is Science and what is not. What you?re saying above is incorrect and repeats the errors you?ve made before. I?ve told you that but you continue to insist. Why?

[Omnibus]

Quote:Reply #431 on: November 10, 2007, 11:41:51 PM  Posted by: Omnibus:

..."Like I said, so far, the most interesting device is the SMOT and its modifications by Finsrud and especially by @xpenzif since it is easily demonstrable, has no energy input whatsoever and is obviously self-sustaining. Everything else is more or less hearsay as of today."

Finally, I've found that famous (at least to some) SMOT link (page 21 on this forum). It's (almost) devine! It's divinity is in its LACK OF PERPENDICULLARITY BETWEEN THOSE TWO ROD MAGNETS, creating slightly V-shaped slot. The ball is placed on a track in the wider side V-shaped slot between those two not-quite-perpendicular rod magnets. And GO!!! Note that the path is relatively short (it cannot be narrowing into infinity). The ball is always pulled by gradually approaching magnets' ends and at end of track (the ball) drops out of the track. The inertia of the ball's mass is greater than magnets' pull at the moment of drop. That way it can go only to the end of the track.
How one can even compare this basic SMOT expriment to ready patent and already working machine (Troy Reed)?

What's your point?

[tinu]

No, you are a snot. You are a disgusting snot. Dirty little nothing.

I wasn't actually calling you a snot, I was merely referring to that fact that you like to indulge in this kind of name calling which you have demonstrated so well again. Of course, you may call me a snot from the safety of your keyboard, that is your privilege being an elite member of this forum.

and ending with @tinu's obviously incorrect claim that at B the signs in the potential energy the ball has are not as I have shown them to be, that is, (+mgh1 +Mb),

You haven't "shown" anything, you simply repeat that tinu etc. are wrong and that you are obviously right.

Hey, buddy, you're a liar on top of that. Read you previous post and see once again are  or are you not calling me a snot. From the safety of you keyboard ...

Also, I have shown what I claim I've shown. You don't understand it but that doesn't mean that I haven't shown it. As for @tinu's misunderstanding, it is not to be used as an argument. Confusion and misunderstanding are never scientific arguments. @tinu must be clearly told that he just doesn't know what he's talking about when claiming that at B the potential energy of the ball (+mgh1 +Mb) has the wrong signs. This is basic stuff which a person conversant in Physics knows ahead of time, even before knowing me and my argument. One should know such stuff before entering into the discussions here. The fact that (+mgh1 +Mb) is the potential energy of the ball at B isn't prone to consensus. This is an absolute fact. Science isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship and facts such as the above dictate. There cannot be equally valid varying opinions about such facts. Therefore, one cannot be polite with people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth. You don't understand this and therefore you should restrain from further cluttering the thread with your useless but nasty comments.

Well, well. This is already pretty boring, isn?t it?
I said Mb is negative because it is actually opposing the sign of mgh, which is positive. At the time of posting that it was more like a hint. Now I have it shown.
Write it as you may like. Mb+mgh1<mgh1. Do you like it better this way?

Now, what I was asking for was clarifications about the: ?Trained person will immediately see that the net gain in the potential energy when raising the ball from A to B which is (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) doesn?t equal the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) = (mgh1 + mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]) the ball loses along the rest of the closed loop. This is in clear violation of CoE. The excess energy which accounts for this discrepancy has no source and is energy out of nothing.?

I was gently trying to tell you that you walk through deep swamps. But truth is the above quote is the most stupid statement I?ve ever read, given the scientific accuracy claims. Now you have it plainly stated. Take it slowly; if you don?t understand I?ll explain its complete idiocy. Hint: (mgh1-(Ma-Mb)) does not equal (mgh1+Mb). Huh! Well?!!! Of course they are not mathematically equal. Does it take a ?trained person? to see that?! They are not equal unless Ma=0 or? What? Why? Is it correct or wrong? What?s the physical significance? (MrEntropy and few others please refrain from posting the answer. I?d like to hear it from the source).

Anyway, after reading the above I realized it must be a complete vortex in your mind but let?s wait for your explanation; maybe I judged wrong. Then, as if it was not already enough, the puzzling part comes: ?the excess energy which accounts for??! Really?!!! Which excess?! That resulting from the above non-sense? If not from there, maybe from the in the right term. Or from other mysterious place?

Now, if one can write mgh1-Mb as potential energy in B and it can do that - believe me (this is also science and not far from basic stuff), so some explanations are expected from you, not only about the above in respect to your obvious ?intellectual superiority? but also about that SMOT utopia CoE you stressed us for the last 1.5 years if not longer.
You seem like talking a lot about ?people impudently pushing for such facts to be ignored and something stupid to be accepted as truth? but I suppose the only one doing that is you erroneously pushing about  SMOT CoE violation. I guess it?s time to deal with it one way or the other, if you really can stand such a discussion. If not, sorry for provoking.
   
My analysis about SMOT and about its behavior is done. I?ll post it soon, in reply to yours.
Meanwhile, please stop cluttering the thread with non-sense. 

Tinu

[shruggedatlas]

As it is not the case that Einstein?s theory is anything else but a compilation of trivial errors. Propaganda of these matters is fierce and the real scientist and the person seeking the truth must be very, very careful not to sink in this propaganda pit.

Wildly off topic, but do you have evidence to bash Einstein?  Which parts do you disagree with?  The Hafele?Keating experiment (explained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment) confirmed the principles of special relativity.  Do you have any reason to believe this was performed incorrectly?  Furthermore, the same effect is observed consistently today with GPS systems, where atomic clocks on the ground are compared with the atomic clock of an orbiting satellite (details in http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html).

And do you have an issue with the basic prinicple that gravity is no different than acceleration, that is a person in a rocketship, accelerating at 9.81m/s² would feel no different than if he was standing on Earth.  When you say "full of trivial errors", I am curious to know what trivial errors the great man committed.  As it stands, we know quite a bit about him, but virtually nothing about your work, except for a questionable experiment, so I am going to side with Einstein for the time being.

Back to the SMOT, it is clear why you are not precisely measuring the amount of energy required to move the ball from A to B - it requires an expensive component you do not have onhand.  Unfortunately, without some way to precisely compare total energy in versus total energy out, you will not convince anyone but the choir.