Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[hansvonlieven]

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

His religion might collapse if he saw what really happens. He cannot afford to do this.

Hans von Lieven

[Omnibus]

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.

No, no, never mind. I won't get into that. I explained it to you but I can't understand it for you. And please, don't qualify what's good Science and what's not. You show little understanding as to how Science works and that's understandable, you're not a scientist. So, don't make these evaluations. For instance, it is never acceptable to suppose that an effect demonstrated experimentally will not show up upon future trials until you do the actual experiments and prove otherwise. Also, your dissatisfaction stems from your confusion, not because there are legitimate reasons for a knowledgeable person to be dissatisfied. Therefore, instead of expressing whether or not you're satisfied it's much more advisable to take measures and try to understand what you don't understand now. I made some effort, going out of my way to help you in that. All is there, read it and think over it while restraining to give unqualified opinions. I feel you need to be told this because I see you are also starting to lose measure. Try not to absorb the polite arrogance and the passive aggressiveness of some semi-educated but quite pushy people here.

Also, I will not agree to disagree. I cannot agree to disagree with obviously confused people whom I told more than once, for instance, that the human hand isn't the issue but what is discussed is the energy of the ball. This kind of stubbornness leads to a dead end and I have to be perfectly clear with you, you have to understand what you don't understand now and not ask me to agree to disagree. Absolutely not.

[Omnibus]

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

His religion might collapse if he saw what really happens. He cannot afford to do this.

Hans von Lieven

That's crap.

[Mr.Entropy]

Naudin's energy test would demonstrate a CoE violation if there wasn't so much energy lost when the ball crashes violently into the inside of the tube.  As it was done, the difference in this loss in the SMOT vs. magnetless tests, due to the ball's differing trajectories and rotational speeds, suffices to explain the difference in the distance travelled up the tube.

To do this experiment more accurately, you would let the ball free-fall a bit to escape the magentic field, and then measure its velocity with a stroboscope or some other interference-free technique.  Some of these techniques are easily accomplished by the amateur, and certainly well within Naudin's capabilities.  For example:

- put a photodiode in a dark container with a pin-hole to let a pinpoint of light in, and shine a laser pointer at it horizontally from some distance away.  Do this at some known height below the smot, so that the ball will break the beam as it falls.

- put another photodiode/laser pair parallel to the first one a couple inches below it.

As the ball falls, now, you can measure the time difference between the breaking of the first and second beam to find the velocity of the ball, which you can use to calculate the difference in kinetic energy in the smot vs. smotless case.  There are easy electronic circuits you could us to make this measurement, but a scope works just as well.

Also, to be really fair, you don't want to move the smot magnets out of the way for the smotless case -- you'd just tilt the SMOT up until the ball could roll backwards out of the input, and raise it up to ensure that it starts at the same height that it starts at when it goes through the smot.

--
Mr. Entropy

[Omnibus]

Naudin's energy test would demonstrate a CoE violation if there wasn't so much energy lost when the ball crashes violently into the inside of the tube.  As it was done, the difference in this loss in the SMOT vs. magnetless tests, due to the ball's differing trajectories and rotational speeds, suffices to explain the difference in the distance travelled up the tube.

To do this experiment more accurately, you would let the ball free-fall a bit to escape the magentic field, and then measure its velocity with a stroboscope or some other interference-free technique.  Some of these techniques are easily accomplished by the amateur, and certainly well within Naudin's capabilities.  For example:

- put a photodiode in a dark container with a pin-hole to let a pinpoint of light in, and shine a laser pointer at it horizontally from some distance away.  Do this at some known height below the smot, so that the ball will break the beam as it falls.

- put another photodiode/laser pair parallel to the first one a couple inches below it.

As the ball falls, now, you can measure the time difference between the breaking of the first and second beam to find the velocity of the ball, which you can use to calculate the difference in kinetic energy in the smot vs. smotless case.  There are easy electronic circuits you could us to make this measurement, but a scope works just as well.

Also, to be really fair, you don't want to move the smot magnets out of the way for the smotless case -- you'd just tilt the SMOT up until the ball could roll backwards out of the input, and raise it up to ensure that it starts at the same height that it starts at when it goes through the smot.

--
Mr. Entropy

Sure, that tests may be done as many other tests as well. They will all confirm that SMOT produces excess energy. If you disagree, show results from tests which demonstrate otherwise. As a matter of fact, all these tests are unnecessary, as I already noted, once the A-B-C-A closed loop experiment is carried out. It resolves in one stroke the above doubts and proves unequivocally that SMOT produces excess energy.