DEBATE THREAD

[psychopath]

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.

I'm sorry but you are trying to find an excuse for CoE to be valid in the event that a looped smot is built. According to current day knowledge, magnetism is a conservative force, which means you cannot gain energy from magnets.

So, if a looped smot is built, then at least some part of current day physics is wrong. Either, CoE is violated or magnetism is not a conservative force after all.

So please stay logical, and stop trying to find

excuses

[Bessler007]

psychopath,

I stipulated, "Even if ....".  That's a very big if in the face of an idea that's been around since 1977.  It's an even bigger if in the face of the conservative nature of both gravity and magnetism.

I would take it a step further.  Even if gravity or magnetism aren't conservative it doesn't appear the smot will supply the proof.  So far it hasn't.

I can see your point that if any presently thought conservative force (ie gravity, springs, etc) could produce more energy than was stored in them then it would mean energy could be created.  That would be the death of the 1st Law.

I'll give you the point that if magnetism in combination with gravity isn't conservative then the 1st law isn't valid.  Do you have a proof?


Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

edit:  The 1st law has reality making all the excuses it needs.  It doesn't need my help.  I'd suggest you misunderstood what I said.

[Omnibus]

@Bessler007,

Of course, I have a definitive proof that the two conservative fields, magnetic and gravitational, if properly overlaid as in SMOT violate CoE. I have shown that proof numerous times, including in this thread. You?d do better to read and think rather than insult me with ad hominem attacks, ignoring my arguments without any grounds.

And, by the way, the idea isn?t around since 1977 but is centuries old, first expressed by Johannes Taisnierus in 1579 and maybe even earlier.

Study, think and restrain from cluttering the forum with confused opinions.

[Bessler007]

psychopath,

The SMOT is a pendulum action where the ball falls into a magnetic field then out of it with the assistance of gravity.  Any energy the ball gains by magnetism is lost when gravity pulls it out of the magnetism.  With gravity's assistance the ball repays the magnet for the energy it added to it, less friction and other losses.

This is interesting.  A series of magnets add to the kinetic energy of the ball and gravity only has to overcome the magnetism of the final (few?) magnets.  Even at that there isn't sufficient energy in the ball to return to the gravitational potential it left from.

I think even as an overunity device the SMOT is a poor example.

Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

[Omnibus]

psychopath,

The SMOT is a pendulum action where the ball falls into a magnetic field then out of it with the assistance of gravity.  Any energy the ball gains by magnetism is lost when gravity pulls it out of the magnetism.  With gravity's assistance the ball repays the magnet for the energy it added to it, less friction and other losses.

This is interesting.  A series of magnets add to the kinetic energy of the ball and gravity only has to overcome the magnetism of the final (few?) magnets.  Even at that there isn't sufficient energy in the ball to return to the gravitational potential it left from.

I think even as an overunity device the SMOT is a poor example.

Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

This is an ad hominem attack.

Stop insulting me by ignoring my argument without any basis and substituting it by complete nonsense.

SMOT isn't a pendulum. In SMOT, according to the analysis I present, the input energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) imparted to the ball is less than the energy which the ball loses when it returns to its initial state. This is a clear violation of CoE. This argument you must not ignore and if you continue to ignore it I'd ask Stefan to ban you for continuous ad hominem attack. This is too much.

[Bessler007]

I think that's the most significant evidence the SMOT doesn't violate the 1st Law.

As a series of magnets add energy to the ball raising it within a gravitational field, the final state of that kinetic energy as the ball falls within a gravitational field only has to overcome the final few magnets in that series.  It doesn't have to overcome all the magnets that added to its energy.

Even with the clear addition of free energy to the ball it can't return to where it came from just wrt to gravity and close the loop.


Bessler007


ps:  Omnibusted, I have yet to attack you with ad hominen.  You are wrong again.  lol.  It must suck to be you.

[Omnibus]

I think that's the most significant evidence the SMOT doesn't violate the 1st Law.

As a series of magnets add energy to the ball raising it within a gravitational field, the final state of that kinetic energy as the ball falls within a gravitational field only has to overcome the final few magnets in that series.  It doesn't have to overcome all the magnets that added to its energy.

Even with the clear addition of free energy to the ball it can't return to where it came from just wrt to gravity and close the loop.


Bessler007


ps:  Omnibusted, I have yet to attack you with ad hominen.  You are wrong again.  lol.  It must suck to be you.

What you're saying is complete nonsense. Stop ignoring my argument incurring in this way a personal attack at me. Stop the ad hominem attack or this is gonna become ugly. This is a warning.

[Bessler007]

psychopath,

Even if the smot could operate in a closed loop (although that seems to be an impossible engineering feat) the ball receives free energy from magnets not unlike the analogy of a sailboat receiving free energy from the wind.

The conservative nature of magnetism isn't a factor in as much as the ball doesn't have to overcome all the magnetism that adds to its energy.

The SMOT is most likely the poorest example of overunity in its use of that free energy available from that open loop.


Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

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.

I'm sorry but you are trying to find an excuse for CoE to be valid in the event that a looped smot is built. According to current day knowledge, magnetism is a conservative force, which means you cannot gain energy from magnets.

So, if a looped smot is built, then at least some part of current day physics is wrong. Either, CoE is violated or magnetism is not a conservative force after all.

So please stay logical, and stop trying to find

excuses

[Omnibus]

@Bessler007,

This is a personal insult to ignore my argument and substitute it with utter stupidity such as the one contained in your last posting to @psychopath.

It is impossible for the magnet to impart spontaneously magnetic potential energy to the ball, a fact you choose to ignore, and yet it happens in SMOT. That can only be due to the appearance of energy out of no source (energy out of nothing, excess energy). That energy which has appeared out of no source makes it possible for the ball to have at C more energy that can be converted in other energies upon the ball?s return at its initial position than the energy imparted to the ball. This is in clear violation of CoE.

As for the sailboat, the source of the energy of a sailboat is known?the wind. Unlike the source for the excess energy in SMOT?there is no source for the excess energy in SMOT. Therefore, the analogy you give with a sailboat is incorrect.

You have no dignity and self-respect continuing to dirty the discussion with your stupidity while ignoring the real argument. Stop this ad hominem attack.

[acp]

This has to be the funniest thread in a long time 

[Low-Q]

There is a new post you should take a look at here, from @tinu, with some quotes:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3417.330.html

Omnibus will never agree that Ein > Eout anyway. We cannot consider his claims in any matter regarding SMOT, as the claims are not true. Exclution of members is a very bad thing to do, so I dont mean to exclude anyone, just ones claims and statements once in a while.

Cheers.

[psychopath]

psychopath,

I stipulated, "Even if ....".  That's a very big if in the face of an idea that's been around since 1977.  It's an even bigger if in the face of the conservative nature of both gravity and magnetism.

I would take it a step further.  Even if gravity or magnetism aren't conservative it doesn't appear the smot will supply the proof.  So far it hasn't.

I can see your point that if any presently thought conservative force (ie gravity, springs, etc) could produce more energy than was stored in them then it would mean energy could be created.  That would be the death of the 1st Law.

I'll give you the point that if magnetism in combination with gravity isn't conservative then the 1st law isn't valid.  Do you have a proof?


Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

edit:  The 1st law has reality making all the excuses it needs.  It doesn't need my help.  I'd suggest you misunderstood what I said.

Bessler, do you understand the difference between energy and force? Anyway, a conservative force cannot store energy(if you know what I mean). You have also misrepresented what I said, I said that if energy was gained from a conservative force then either CoE was violated or that the force wasn't conservative in the first place.

It depends on what your premise is. Either way, some law of physics is violated, and I didn't say it must be one or the other, which is what you seem to have interpreted.

The SMOT is a pendulum action where the ball falls into a magnetic field then out of it with the assistance of gravity.  Any energy the ball gains by magnetism is lost when gravity pulls it out of the magnetism.  With gravity's assistance the ball repays the magnet for the energy it added to it, less friction and other losses.

Is it me, or are you mixing POETRY with science? A smot is not a pendulum action 

[supersam]

omnibus,
 can you substitute some real world numbers into your equation, to set our minds at ease with your, " asstonishing", revelation?

lol
sam

[DA]

Any thread can be taken over by Omnibus and his SMOT discussions, as we can see in this thread. 

Is there a reason for this?  Perhaps.  One possible explanation is that Omnibus is being paid for his actions.  By "big oil"?    Of course I think this is ridiculous, but ....

Any thread that shows promise of achieving overunity and where people start to work together, is systematically derailed and sidetracked by Omnibus.  Introducing his SMOT into a thread wastes people's time, makes the thread harder to follow, and it degenerates into arguing about the SMOT instead of the subject of the thread.  Can you imagine the power sellers following a thread which really does have potential, and then breathing a sigh of relief when Omnibus derails it into gibberish?  Of course not, but then,

In the ocpmm thread, I saw many people make suggestions, only to get an insult from Omnibus telling them how stupid they are.  For example, "Your incoherent rantings should stop. This thread isn't a trash bin for intellectual garbage."  Whether or not the suggestion had merit, the insult often results in the poster just going away, never to be heard from again.  Reminds me of Archie Bunker, yelling "Stifle!  Stifle!"  To have an opinion that someones idea will not work is fine, but the insults like the one above that really say nothing serve no purpose but to alienate people and stop the thread.  So perhaps that is the intent of Omnibus.

Let's look at the facts.  In this thread alone, examining Omnibus comments shows a consistency.  This is a reply to me from Omnibus, "For people such as you truth is an insult but that doesn't mean your thinking should set the standard."  Does this really say anything?  Not really.

Also from Omnibus in this thread:

"That's the wrong thread to post this, isn't it?"

"That's gibberish and gibberish can never serve as scientific proof."

"You're polluting any thread you post in, not just this one."

"That's correct. Read it carefully because it applies especially to you. Stop polluting the discussions."

"Like I've told you many times regarding that "argument", it's nonsense."

"Never mind. Don't bother. You have no clue."

"You're a pathetic little creature that doesn't know his place. Anyone in the know reading your disgustingly arrogant nonsense sees that. What nerve."

"Stop repeating this nonsense."

"That applies to you. Try to learn instear of cluttering the discussions with chit-chat and nonsense."

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

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

"Don't fall into the trap confused and dishonest people are laying out here."

"You don't get it, do you? Why bother posting opinions, then?"

"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."

"Study, think and restrain from cluttering the forum with confused opinions."

"Stop insulting me by ignoring my argument without any basis and substituting it by complete nonsense."

"What you're saying is complete nonsense. Stop ignoring my argument incurring in this way a personal attack at me. Stop the ad hominem attack or this is gonna become ugly. This is a warning." (threat)

"This is a personal insult to ignore my argument and substitute it with utter stupidity such as the one contained in your last posting . . . You have no dignity and self-respect continuing to dirty the discussion with your stupidity while ignoring the real argument. Stop this ad hominem attack."

Fact:  19 insults by Omnibus, in this thread alone. 

At present there are less than 105 posts in this thread, yet 19 have an insult by Omnibus.   So 18% of the posts contain an Omnibus insult, almost 1 in every 5.  This high percentage of argumentum ad personam is quite impressive, and "Big Oil" should be quite pleased. 

Well done, Omnibus.

 

[psychopath]

Well this is called the debate thread after all lol.

This thread did have a bit of constructive discussion in the middle...but I think the thread title naturally turns it into a debate, actually it's become more of a shouting match  :'(