Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 897265
  • *Total Topics: 15811
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 14
  • *Total: 18

Author Topic: DEBATE THREAD  (Read 107007 times)

Offline psychopath

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #150 on: January 29, 2008, 03:13:08 AM »

Not possible? You take the failures of hobbyist inventors as experimental proof that looped smots are not possible?

It's like saying 120 yrs ago that "Many people have failed to produce a flying machine in practice, therefore it is impossible".

Let me guess, you also think there is nothing left to invent?

Actually I believe a lot of things are possible, unfortunately closed loop SMOT is not one of them.

Using flight as an argument is quite possibly the worst example, since physics and BIRDS proved it possible long before we got off the ground.

So how about you point to a theory other than Omnibots that shows that SMOT can close the loop?

You can believe that looped smots are not possible, but saying it is impossible is wrong.

Actually my flight example was perfect, since earlier scientists were convinced that man made flight was impossible. I don't care what the birds did, the people denied it just because many people failed, even though the birds were flying. The wright brothers were regarded as crackpots.

I never said that looped smots are definitely possible, I said that they are not definitely impossible, at least not yet.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #150 on: January 29, 2008, 03:13:08 AM »

Offline PolyMatrix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #151 on: January 29, 2008, 03:23:51 AM »
Here is wickpedia's view against the idea {edit} which is marked as disputed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMOT

Offline RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #152 on: January 29, 2008, 03:26:42 AM »

Actually my flight example was perfect, since earlier scientists were convinced that man made flight was impossible. I don't care what the birds did, the people denied it just because many people failed, even though the birds were flying. The wright brothers were regarded as crackpots.


http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_7.htm
Quote
And although it was theorized that heavier-than-air flight was possible as early as the 13th century, and in the 16th century Leonardo da Vinci designed winged aircraft and a crude kind of helicopter

Thats 4 centuries before we got off the ground.
Just glad we don't have to rely on waiting for a closed loop SMOT. (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #152 on: January 29, 2008, 03:26:42 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #153 on: January 29, 2008, 03:27:24 AM »
Here is wickpedia's view against the idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMOT
Wikipedia's "idea" is incorrect. It's well known that Wikipedia is an unreliable source and this is one more example.

Would be good to correct the errors there but I don't think it should be me who should do that.

Offline psychopath

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #154 on: January 29, 2008, 03:30:42 AM »
Here is wickpedia's view against the idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMOT

Wikipedia's "Analysis of operation" sounds like the works of a crackpot trying to use words like "kinetic" and "energy" to sound scientific. It is nowhere near an "analysis", more of a one line "It's impossible" argument.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #154 on: January 29, 2008, 03:30:42 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline supersam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #155 on: January 29, 2008, 03:31:20 AM »
@psycopath,

i am with you brother!  no matter how crazy it gets.  i am even a beleiver in smot.  i hope you don't think i am crazy.  however, i hope to point out to a few believers in smot, that there are actual numbers out there that will do a lot more for the cause than, a bunch of variables with no reql numbers attached.  variables are always just that, variables, until math reduces them to real numbers.  that is the real point.  what are the real numbers?  now we have a place to start a real debate.  it is really not possible with only a bunch of variables.

lol
sam

ps:  i am sorry, he did use the 1, in his algebraic equations.

Offline psychopath

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #156 on: January 29, 2008, 03:36:52 AM »

Actually my flight example was perfect, since earlier scientists were convinced that man made flight was impossible. I don't care what the birds did, the people denied it just because many people failed, even though the birds were flying. The wright brothers were regarded as crackpots.


http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_7.htm
Quote
And although it was theorized that heavier-than-air flight was possible as early as the 13th century, and in the 16th century Leonardo da Vinci designed winged aircraft and a crude kind of helicopter

Thats 4 centuries before we got off the ground.
Just glad we don't have to rely on waiting for a closed loop SMOT. (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)

Leaornado da vinci? Da vinci never intended to be practical, he was more of an artist, than an inventor. At his time there was no such thing as a motor, and it is highly impractical to use a steam engine with a helicopter. His helicopter doesn't work, it is simply an idea.

His glider was just that, a glider, not a flying machine.

Guess what, my great great grand pa drew a picture of a looped smot, that must mean that everyone accepts the validity of looped smots(sarcasm).

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #156 on: January 29, 2008, 03:36:52 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline psychopath

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #157 on: January 29, 2008, 03:38:32 AM »
@psycopath,

i am with you brother!  no matter how crazy it gets.  i am even a beleiver in smot.  i hope you don't think i am crazy.  however, i hope to point out to a few believers in smot, that there are actual numbers out there that will do a lot more for the cause than, a bunch of variables with no reql numbers attached.  variables are always just that, variables, until math reduces them to real numbers.  that is the real point.  what are the real numbers?  now we have a place to start a real debate.  it is really not possible with only a bunch of variables.

lol
sam

ps:  i am sorry, he did use the 1, in his algebraic equations.

I agree. Formulas are somewhat useless until we substitute the real numbers.

Offline Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #158 on: January 29, 2008, 03:40:07 AM »
In a private message, Omnibusted has told me he's going to make good on the emboldened threat below if more people don't start seeing things their way.

They are threatening to post a personal picture.  This could get really ugly.


Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ




@DQ (aka @modervador),

Stop insulting me by ignoring my argument and substituting it by spewing stupidities. You're waging an ad hominem attack at me by continuously cluttering this and other threads with semi-truths and outright lies. This should stop or it will get ugly.  I have no friends but the truth and anyone such as you abusing the truth is my enemy.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #158 on: January 29, 2008, 03:40:07 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline psychopath

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #159 on: January 29, 2008, 03:44:25 AM »
In a private message, Omnibusted has told me he's going to make good on the emboldened threat below if more people don't start seeing things their way.

They are threatening to post a personal picture.  This could get really ugly.


Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ




@DQ (aka @modervador),

Stop insulting me by ignoring my argument and substituting it by spewing stupidities. You're waging an ad hominem attack at me by continuously cluttering this and other threads with semi-truths and outright lies. This should stop or it will get ugly.  I have no friends but the truth and anyone such as you abusing the truth is my enemy.

You sound like a media fear campaign lol

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #160 on: January 29, 2008, 03:52:48 AM »
Perhaps, I have to say something more on this topic to aid the honest seekers of the truth to understand better why SMOT violates CoE. Here it goes:

The main problem in the analysis shown here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMOT is the implication that there must be a  working self-sustaining device to prove violation of CoE. This is a misleading statement by someone at odds with what science requirements are to claim violation of CoE.

This implication carries on further in the text explaining why this device isn?t violating CoE:

?The device does not gather "free energy" as is sometimes advertised. It does convert potential energy in the form of the steel ball's distance from the magnetic source to kinetic energy as it rolls towards it - just as is done by any object when it falls. Similar conversions of energy from potential to kinetic and back take place in the swinging of a pendulum, but the representation is created by the perceived increase in gravitational potential energy as the ball rolls up the ramp. The eye is not attuned to see the decrease in magnetic potential energy as it moves towards the magnet. Any device constructed to extract the energy from the system will not work forever just as no pendulum will oscillate forever as dissipative forces (such as friction) will eventually damp the motion. Thus, in this conception, the device is not a perpetual motion machine since it will eventually stop, and there is no "overunity" efficiency achieved.?

This is a blatantly incorrect analysis because the analogy that is applied therein with a pendulum is inapplicable in SMOT. The source of energy which the pendulum returns when swayed away from its initial state is known. The pendulum returns (loses spontaneously) that energy in its entirety when returning to the initial position. Not so in SMOT. In SMOT the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) which the ball returns spontaneously (the energy that is spontaneously transformed into other energies) when the ball returns at its initial position is greater than the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted to the ball.

It should be very heavily underlined that exactly this discrepancy between input and lost energy which science considers as criterion for the violation of CoE. Nothing else. No self-sustaining devices, pro practical application of the energies etc. Just the comparison of the quantities of the imparted and lost energy is what matters when one is to decide whether or not CoE is violated.

So, now, again, here?s that argument in short:

The experiment (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847) proving violation of CoE is presented schematically here: http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif (if the link doesn?t open hit Reload). Denote the mass of ball by m, the gravitational constant by g, the magnetic potential energy at points A and B respectively by Ma and Mb, the heights to raise the ball from point A to B and from B to C respectively h1 and h2, kinetic (and other) energy by Kc.

If CoE is to be obeyed then only the amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) of the entire amount (mgh1 + Mb) at B will transform into other energies upon the return of the ball from B to A. Amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) is the amount of energy imparted to the ball.

In SMOT, however, the entire amount of energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) the ball has at point C which is greater than the amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) imparted to the ball is transformed into other energies upon the return of the ball at A. This is in clear violation of CoE.

I?ve been posting the above argument over and over again and so far only @modervador understood it. Unfortunately he?s dishonest and because of that is unwilling to admit explicitly that I'm right in my claim that SMOT violates CoE. He would say literally anything, with a typical polite arrogance, to avoid honestly admitting that my analysis conclusively proves that SMOT violates CoE. He will have to live with his conscience.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #160 on: January 29, 2008, 03:52:48 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #161 on: January 29, 2008, 03:54:22 AM »
Here is wickpedia's view against the idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMOT

Wikipedia's "Analysis of operation" sounds like the works of a crackpot trying to use words like "kinetic" and "energy" to sound scientific. It is nowhere near an "analysis", more of a one line "It's impossible" argument.
Very well said.

Offline PolyMatrix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #162 on: January 29, 2008, 03:56:42 AM »
Perhaps a Physicist can tell me why the turning moment of the North and South Poles is not equal.

Experiment:
Take two rod-magnets and let the attracting poles connect. The join becomes the centre of a circle.
Part the two magnets and find the angle at which the magnet is no longer able to return to its North South connection.
Now do the same for the other ends of the magnet.

For the magnets I used I found that the turning moment was a little over 120 degrees for all directions. This is true for both ends of a magnet. So is would seem there is an overlapping turning moment.

What is the correct way of interpreting this observation?



Offline supersam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #163 on: January 29, 2008, 03:59:03 AM »
@omnibus,

i friend, am not your enemy.  you have plenty of those without my input.  the only suggestion i can make to you is why not use some real numbers in your proofs, so that they do not look like just a bunch of variables?  because without real numbers that is exactly what they are.  they are are all variables.  except of course for one, which has been proven mathematcially to equal 2!

lol
sam

Offline supersam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #164 on: January 29, 2008, 04:45:41 AM »
@omnibus,

what if you dropped your, SMOT, ball at just the right time to strike the pendulum of MILKOVIKS, dual occilating pendulum? would the outcome be a perpetual energy generator,if some of the energy from milkovic's machine,can be, feed back to your smot?

 

OneLink