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

Custom Search

Omnibus

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5330
« Reply #75 on: January 27, 2008, 02:18:20 AM »
Now, just look at that comparison @DA makes with my proof:

?There is an old "proof" that shows that 1 equals 2.  It looks quite good on paper, until you notice that the result was obtained by dividing by zero.?

Such proof is indeed flawed and it proves my point, not what @DA intended.  . . .

Ok, Omnibus.  After examining your "proof", it is just my opinion that it is worthless.  Just my opinion, no offense intended.  I had hoped you proof was more rigorous.  While I see no way to make it valid, perhaps you will be able to someday.

To reply to your last line, "You have no idea, what I intend."

I'll end this with one of my favorite Omnibus quotes, I think everyone should copy this down and show it to their science/physics teachers.  Think about what Omnibus said here:

"You're wrong. It has never been nor it will ever be that theory would precede experiment. Absolutely not. You're quite confused about that."

Admit first that the analogy (your 1 equals 2 analogy) you made with my proof is incorrect  and then we'll proceed with the rest.

psychopath

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 62
« Reply #76 on: January 27, 2008, 03:21:18 AM »
I think we are all overlooking a very important fact here, that 1 does indeed equal 2.

Low-Q

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2840
« Reply #77 on: January 27, 2008, 11:33:47 PM »
@pshycopath. To disprove that SMOT violates CoE, the math should be done right, by basing it on correct conditions. Omnibus has only prooven that the ball firstly is placed incorrectly in point B, secondly that the ball takes a detour which takes respectively longer time to go back to point A. No exess energy is proven yet. Cheers
Stop repeating this nonsense. Repeating it won't make it true. Energy balance of such machines isn't time-dependent as you incorrectly understand and placing it at B is a fact which cannot be disputed. Violation of CoE by SMOT is proven beyond doubt.
No, you're wrong - VERY wrong. It's indeed time depended - as you should know quite well yourself. Virtually you're just standing in front of a steep hill, and are placing the ball at some point beyond the very top of it, so it don't roll the same way back to level A where you are standing. Then the ball are using more time and longer distance by rolling downhill, less steep, on a detour - lets imagine it's a spiral track - downhill till it finally reach level A where you are standing, using your own energy to put the ball back beyound the top of the hill again.

So one of the important points is in fact that YOU decides where B are suppose to be, and you got blind by the mysterious incident, and surprised why the ball didn't roll directly back from B to A. You simply don't see that the ball is placed by YOUR hand. YOU decide where it should be, and YOU have decided that the very natural action, that the ball OFCOURSE selects the least resistant way back to A, is caused by some mysterious supply of energy, coming from nowhere. THE EXCESS ENERGY COMES FROM YOUR OWN HAND, BY YOUR OWN DECISION OF POINT B!!!

GOT IT??

I repeat this "nonsense" because it's already true, and you know it more than very well.

Cheers

Low-Q

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2840
« Reply #78 on: January 27, 2008, 11:35:17 PM »
Now, just look at that comparison @DA makes with my proof:

Ã¢â‚¬Å“There is an old "proof" that shows that 1 equals 2.  It looks quite good on paper, until you notice that the result was obtained by dividing by zero.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Such proof is indeed flawed and it proves my point, not what @DA intended.  . . .

Ok, Omnibus.  After examining your "proof", it is just my opinion that it is worthless.  Just my opinion, no offense intended.  I had hoped you proof was more rigorous.  While I see no way to make it valid, perhaps you will be able to someday.

To reply to your last line, "You have no idea, what I intend."

I'll end this with one of my favorite Omnibus quotes, I think everyone should copy this down and show it to their science/physics teachers.  Think about what Omnibus said here:

"You're wrong. It has never been nor it will ever be that theory would precede experiment. Absolutely not. You're quite confused about that."

Admit first that the analogy (your 1 equals 2 analogy) you made with my proof is incorrect  and then we'll proceed with the rest.
What is it to discuss if we all should agree with you?

..................

Omnibus

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5330
« Reply #79 on: January 27, 2008, 11:39:51 PM »
@Low-Q,

Don't say "we". Mind your own problems and confusion.

Low-Q

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2840
« Reply #80 on: January 27, 2008, 11:41:58 PM »
@Low-Q,

Don't say "we". Mind your own problems and confusion.
Take a look at my previous post before you discuss problems with me. Maybe it isn't me that is the problem

Omnibus

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5330
« Reply #81 on: January 27, 2008, 11:48:20 PM »
@Low-Q,

Don't say "we". Mind your own problems and confusion.
Take a look at my previous post before you discuss problems with me. Maybe it isn't me that is the problem
@Low-Q,

That is sheer nonsense. Don't continue with this.

Low-Q

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2840
« Reply #82 on: January 28, 2008, 12:52:03 AM »
@omnibus. Here it is again. Take another look at this post, and discuss it with yourself for a while before dressing me down:

Quote
No, you're wrong - VERY wrong. It's indeed time depended - as you should know quite well yourself. Virtually you're just standing in front of a steep hill, and are placing the ball at some point beyond the very top of it, so it don't roll the same way back to level A where you are standing. Then the ball are using more time and longer distance by rolling downhill, less steep, on a detour - lets imagine it's a spiral track - downhill till it finally reach level A where you are standing, using your own energy to put the ball back beyound the top of the hill again.

So one of the important points is in fact that YOU decides where B are suppose to be, and you got blind by the mysterious incident, and surprised why the ball didn't roll directly back from B to A. You simply don't see that the ball is placed by YOUR hand. YOU decide where it should be, and YOU have decided that the very natural action, that the ball OFCOURSE selects the least resistant way back to A, is caused by some mysterious supply of energy, coming from nowhere. THE EXCESS ENERGY COMES FROM YOUR OWN HAND, BY YOUR OWN DECISION OF POINT B!!!

GOT IT??

I repeat this "nonsense" because it's already true, and you know it more than very well.

Cheers

Cheers, and good night

shruggedatlas

• Hero Member
• Posts: 549
« Reply #83 on: January 28, 2008, 02:04:06 AM »
Such proof is indeed flawed and it proves my point, not what @DA intended. When I have one apple in my left hand and two apples in my right hand I indeed prove that the number of apples I have in my hands is different by counting them. Same thing in my analysis. When I see that the energy input to the ball is (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) but the ball loses energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) I don?t not need to stare much at it to notice that the two amounts differ. Obviously, @DA wants to prove somehow that 1 equals 2 and that (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) equals (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) but it doesn?t. Therefore, @DA should follow his own advice to know better than that and not foist on us flawed ?proofs?. Once he succeeds he would inevitably recognize that SMOT violates CoE because CoE doesn?t allow such discrepancy between input and lost energy as seen in SMOT.

But for some reason there is not enough of this excess energy to get the ball back to B without the hand.  This contradicts the theory and gives everyone pause.  I realize that it does not daunt you one bit, but assuming you do not want to die as the only person who believes in your theory, I think some next steps are in order.

I think one good thing to do is to get the hand out of the experiment.  Use some kind of electronic or mechanical device to raise the ball from A to B, and then the energy required to do this can be measured.

The second thing is that we need to measure the kinetic energy of the ball as it hits A, on the way back from C.

I realize that these are not the simplest things to do with just things around the house, but if you could somehow accomplish the above two things and let others replicate, you would instantly gain supporters worldwide and become the next great thing in science and I and everyone who argued with you would have to eat crow.

Omnibus

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5330
« Reply #84 on: January 28, 2008, 02:44:24 AM »
@shruggedatlas,

As I've said many, many times, the only criterion for whether or not CoE is violated is solely the comparison of the imparted energy and the energy lost by the ball. There are no other criteria. Neither the usefulness of a given energy produced nor whether or not a self-sustaining run can be achieved etc. Nothing else whatsoever. Don't fall into the trap confused and dishonest people are laying out here. There is one undeniable fact--if CoE were obeyed then the only energy that stands to transform into other energies upon ball's return from B back at A is the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) imparted to the ball. That's not the case in SMOT. In SMOT the energy imparted to the ball is (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) while the energy which the ball has at C which stands to be converted into other energies when the ball returns back at A is greater--it is (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc). This is in clear violation of CoE because CoE doesn't allow the discrepancy between these two energies (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) and (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc). Learn this somehow once for all and try to avoid the perpetual confusion some dishonest people here are trying to instill in curious people such as you. This question is closed. SMOT violates CoE beyond a shadow of a doubt. As for the practical, engineering applications of this violation, there are lots of discussions going on as we speak and you may try to pay more attention there rather than further entangle yourself in confusion so desired by the mentioned dishonest individuals.

psychopath

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 62
« Reply #85 on: January 28, 2008, 02:57:26 AM »
@pshycopath. To disprove that SMOT violates CoE, the math should be done right, by basing it on correct conditions. Omnibus has only prooven that the ball firstly is placed incorrectly in point B, secondly that the ball takes a detour which takes respectively longer time to go back to point A. No exess energy is proven yet. Cheers
Stop repeating this nonsense. Repeating it won't make it true. Energy balance of such machines isn't time-dependent as you incorrectly understand and placing it at B is a fact which cannot be disputed. Violation of CoE by SMOT is proven beyond doubt.
No, you're wrong - VERY wrong. It's indeed time depended - as you should know quite well yourself. Virtually you're just standing in front of a steep hill, and are placing the ball at some point beyond the very top of it, so it don't roll the same way back to level A where you are standing. Then the ball are using more time and longer distance by rolling downhill, less steep, on a detour - lets imagine it's a spiral track - downhill till it finally reach level A where you are standing, using your own energy to put the ball back beyound the top of the hill again.

So one of the important points is in fact that YOU decides where B are suppose to be, and you got blind by the mysterious incident, and surprised why the ball didn't roll directly back from B to A. You simply don't see that the ball is placed by YOUR hand. YOU decide where it should be, and YOU have decided that the very natural action, that the ball OFCOURSE selects the least resistant way back to A, is caused by some mysterious supply of energy, coming from nowhere. THE EXCESS ENERGY COMES FROM YOUR OWN HAND, BY YOUR OWN DECISION OF POINT B!!!

GOT IT??

I repeat this "nonsense" because it's already true, and you know it more than very well.

Cheers

I'm confused. Why have it so that you have to move the ball to the starting point rather than let the ball move to that point directly? Do you mean the starting point is a little uphill? But then why not have the starting point as lowest as possible, level with the height of the position where the ball falls, so that the ball doesn't have to go uphill? I'm just confused

Bessler007

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 302
« Reply #86 on: January 28, 2008, 07:14:14 AM »
Many attempts have been made to use magnetism to overcome conservation of energy, without success. No perpetual motion machines have ever been demonstrated to actually function.

It might be helpful to see an analysis of the Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy with every iota of energy in the system to establish once and for all if it does indeed violate the 1st Law but really it would be a moot point of the smot.

They can machine and level with lasers yet inspite of the high degree of accuracy in manufacturing, no one has been able to engineer an analog computer (actual model) that would demonstrate the proof.

The expense of a working model producing 2 or 3 nat's butts in energy would hardly justify building it.  If CoE were violated it would prove perpetual motion but it would have to be more than a proof before they would scrap the 1st Law; there would need to be model built.

Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

Omnibus

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5330
« Reply #87 on: January 28, 2008, 07:17:33 AM »
Many attempts have been made to use magnetism to overcome conservation of energy, without success. No perpetual motion machines have ever been demonstrated to actually function.

It might be helpful to see an analysis of the Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy with every iota of energy in the system to establish once and for all if it does indeed violate the 1st Law but really it would be a moot point of the smot.

They can machine and level with lasers yet inspite of the high degree of accuracy in manufacturing, no one has been able to engineer an analog computer (actual model) that would demonstrate the proof.

The expense of a working model producing 2 or 3 nat's butts in energy would hardly justify building it.  If CoE were violated it would prove perpetual motion but it would have to be more than a proof before they would scrap the 1st Law; there would need to be model built.

Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ
You don't get it, do you? Why bother posting opinions, then?

Bessler007

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 302
« Reply #88 on: January 28, 2008, 08:19:34 AM »
It is not opinion you're the only one in the world that "gets it".  You are the only person on the face of the earth that "knows" CoE is violated by a SMOT.  lol

Even the inventor didn't get it.  He calls it an "Overunity Toy".  It isn't a closed loop.  Even if the energy imparted to the ball by the magnets would cause the ball to return to the level it began from, there would be no violation of the 1st Law.  The energy for it to happen would be supplied by the the magnets in the same manner the wind provides the energy to move a sail boat.

You are wrong.  Get over it.

Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

The most a Simple Magnetic
Overunity
Toy could prove is the principle of Overunity.  That already has been proven.

Omnibus

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5330
« Reply #89 on: January 28, 2008, 08:27:11 AM »
It is not opinion you're the only one in the world that "gets it".  You are the only person on the face of the earth that "knows" CoE is violated by a SMOT.  lol

Even the inventor didn't get it.  He calls it an "Overunity Toy".  It isn't a closed loop.  Even if the energy imparted to the ball by the magnets would cause the ball to return to the level it began from, there would be no violation of the 1st Law.  The energy for it to happen would be supplied by the the magnets in the same manner the wind provides the energy to move a sail boat.

You are wrong.  Get over it.

Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ
No, you, you don't get it. Never mind me, never mind everybody else. You're wrong and you should get over it. Try to learn and understand rather than fill the forum with your confusion.