Working Magnetic Motor on you tube??

[Dansway]

Just posted:

Al took everything down from here:
http://freeenergytrackers.ning.com/profile/AlSetalokin

Quote on Steorn's forum:

    *
      Comment Authoralsetalokin
    * CommentTime1 minute ago

permalink
Mary, those are all very good ideas. Why, I even thought of some of them myself. And thank you for the introduction to computer video. Why, when I was programming the IBM 360-44 at Trinity University in the early 70's, we had nothing like that at all. Amazing, isn't it?
If I believed it was worth the effort on my part, I would be doing some of them right now. But it isn't worth it, not for me, not right now, I don't have the physical health or the mental stamina to be able to withstand what I'm going through right now. I've just taken down the whole ning site in order to avoid getting into another Omnibus to nowhere with some poster called Kevin, who has copied a few of my pictures from his browser cache (an IE user no doubt, I'm surprised he could find them) and reposted them and started a snotty thread sniping at me.
So what, as aber0der says, he's just bits and pixels to me, so so what...
So what indeed.

Anyway, there isn't any point to investing so much time and effort and hype in a mechanical curiosity that just spins around for a while. You might as well buy some Steorn shares!

[oak]

@rotorhead,

This is not a deterioration of the discussion.On the contrary. The analysis I'm referring to is the first scientifically sound analysis proving violation of CoE.It has to be reminded every time when the word is about machines such as this one because the understanding which is vigorously pushed, including by someone who isn't so versed scientifically, such as @alsetalonkin, is that CoE absolutely cannot be violated. It can. That's the basic premise from which every further discussion should follow.

Omnibus, as you know, it was just this sort of comment that resulted in your banishment from the Steorn forum last night.

In the first place, alsetalokin is far better of a scientist than you will ever hope to be.  It's really easy to disparage a person who's not in your presence as "someone who isn't so versed scientifically," isn't it.  How churlish.  And the only reason you say it is that is he won't agree with your never-ending claim that a non-looped SMOT shows violation of CoE.

Why can't you stop badgering people with that claim?  Whether it's true or not, trying to cram it down everyone's throat is not helping your argument, because nobody can accept it.  You are like a lawyer who tries to persuade a jury they should find in your favor, because if they don't they're a bunch of stupid a-holes.  It just won't work.  It doesn't matter whether CoE is violated, either by SMOT, by alsetalokin's device, or by anything else.  If it is violated by alsetalokin's device, we'll know soon enough when it's replicated.

[SedZen]

So I am guessing that the eventual rotation failure is caused by the stator. If that is the case maybe creating a mechanism that would alternate active stators would resolve the failure problem?

[Omnibus]

@oak,

I already explained for the umptieth time here in this thread why I?m emphasizing so much and will undoubtedly continue to emphasize at every occasion the importance of the analysis in question. The fact that someone, not very versed in the subtleties of science, as I?ve found out some time ago, doesn?t like it won?t do any good with me. I am on my terms on scientific matters not on his. The person in question, who undoubtedly is a very good technician whom I?ll cite in every paper I write in the future (should this be independently confirmed to be real) as the first to have shown a device continuously producing excess energy and which is an engineering development of the device producing excess energy discontinuously which I have already analyzed and definitively proven to violate CoE, has to be advised to be at least consistent in his actions. Thus, he doesn?t miss an occasion to prevent everyone from discussing the theoretical basis of what he?s done only to shove down the throats of everybody his personal ?theoretical? view that this cannot by any means be violation of CoE (he'll selectively tolerate "theoretical" opinions only of those who go along with his personal take on these matters). This behavior will not only not prevent me but will make me even more determined in presenting the analysis at every appropriate occasion, as I already explained. As for the ?banishment?, I?m hearing it from you because I already made a statement in the Steorn forum that I will not contribute in that forum for a while and when I made that statement there was no ?banishment? or whatever you call it.

[oak]

@oak,

I already explained for the umptieth time here in this thread why I?m emphasizing so much and will undoubtedly continue to emphasize at every occasion the importance of the analysis in question. The fact that someone, not very versed in the subtleties of science, as I?ve found out some time ago, doesn?t like it won?t do any good with me. I am on my terms on scientific matters not on his. The person in question, who undoubtedly is a very good technician whom I?ll cite in every paper I write in the future (should this be independently confirmed to be real) as the first to have shown a device continuously producing excess energy and which is an engineering development of the device producing excess energy discontinuously which I have already analyzed and definitively proven to violate CoE, has to be advised to be at least consistent in his actions. Thus, he doesn?t miss an occasion to prevent everyone from discussing the theoretical basis of what he?s done only to shove down the throats of everybody his personal ?theoretical? view that this cannot by any means be violation of CoE (he'll selectively tolerate "theoretical" opinions only of those who go along with his personal take on these matters). This behavior will not only not prevent me but will make me even more determined in presenting the analysis at every appropriate occasion, as I already explained. As for the ?banishment?, I?m hearing it from you because I already made a statement in the Steorn forum that I will not contribute in that forum for a while and when I made that statement there was no ?banishment? or whatever you call it.

You, sir, are a liar.  You know you were banned.  You did not say you would not contribute in the Steorn forum, you only said you would not comment in his THREAD, after he got sufficiently angry at your bullying that he left.

So what, anyway, what alsetalokin thinks about where the energy is coming from.  He's doing good work.  There are no "appropriate occasions" for you to keep badgering people about what YOU think.  If people aren't convinced of a CoE violation after successful replications are achieved, argue with them then.