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: 894736
  • *Total Topics: 15739
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 7
  • *Total: 10

Author Topic: DEBATE THREAD  (Read 103658 times)

Offline gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #165 on: January 29, 2008, 06:20:36 AM »
Why not debate one of my contraptions rather then the smot.

This one should show you things you don't believe.

http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=524

I have not been able to debunk it, it works much to well for that.

Do remember how you got the innovation all for free before complaining.

Good luck,

:-)
____
http://wind-car.go-here.nl

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #165 on: January 29, 2008, 06:20:36 AM »

Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #166 on: January 29, 2008, 09:42:03 AM »
Interestingly I found someone else has been thinking along similar lines to Omnibus here
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm

That experiment is flawed by conception.
It does not measure SMOT efficiency because it fails to measure input energy. Drop from the input is not input energy; think about it.

Cheers,
Tinu

P.S. I thought this thread is for having fun (right?!) and/or for debating other non-technical issues like hidden agenda, role playing, pay lists, indoctrination culture, business growing etc. etc. and other mind-puzzling, smoke-blowing and sensitive issues. Well?
For technicalities on SMOT there is http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3417.345.html . I don?t mind discussing it wherever but you won?t find same people coming again and again to cure the virus spreading everywhere. It is what it does; its very purpose isn?t it?

Offline psychopath

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #167 on: January 29, 2008, 10:29:17 AM »
Interestingly I found someone else has been thinking along similar lines to Omnibus here
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm

That experiment is flawed by conception.
It does not measure SMOT efficiency because it fails to measure input energy. Drop from the input is not input energy; think about it.

Cheers,
Tinu

P.S. I thought this thread is for having fun (right?!) and/or for debating other non-technical issues like hidden agenda, role playing, pay lists, indoctrination culture, business growing etc. etc. and other mind-puzzling, smoke-blowing and sensitive issues. Well?
For technicalities on SMOT there is http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3417.345.html . I don?t mind discussing it wherever but you won?t find same people coming again and again to cure the virus spreading everywhere. It is what it does; its very purpose isn?t it?


Actually I think this thread is perfect for smot debates, because they are debates, and they don't seem to progress towards an actual working device. I think the other threads should be dedicated to finding new things, and leave the debates to this one.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #167 on: January 29, 2008, 10:29:17 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #168 on: January 29, 2008, 10:45:10 AM »
Actually I think this thread is perfect for smot debates, because they are debates, and they don't seem to progress towards an actual working device. I think the other threads should be dedicated to finding new things, and leave the debates to this one.

Yes, it is for debates as title says but not necessarily on SMOTs exclusively.
In addition, into the other thread there is already twice the number of posts that are here; majority is on SMOT and nothing else. There is some very good quality info posted by people I don?t see here.
What?s the point of starting SMOT debate over again or of perpetually changing its place?

Offline psychopath

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #169 on: January 29, 2008, 11:52:50 AM »
Actually I think this thread is perfect for smot debates, because they are debates, and they don't seem to progress towards an actual working device. I think the other threads should be dedicated to finding new things, and leave the debates to this one.

Yes, it is for debates as title says but not necessarily on SMOTs exclusively.
In addition, into the other thread there is already twice the number of posts that are here; majority is on SMOT and nothing else. There is some very good quality info posted by people I don?t see here.
What?s the point of starting SMOT debate over again or of perpetually changing its place?

The smot debate was settling down anyway...

How about a new topic(something controversial), and maybe we could have rules or something as well so it doesn't get insane.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #169 on: January 29, 2008, 11:52:50 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #170 on: January 29, 2008, 02:39:02 PM »
Interestingly I found someone else has been thinking along similar lines to Omnibus here
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm

That experiment is flawed by conception.
It does not measure SMOT efficiency because it fails to measure input energy. Drop from the input is not input energy; think about it.

Cheers,
Tinu

Nonsense.

Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #171 on: January 29, 2008, 03:16:38 PM »
Interestingly I found someone else has been thinking along similar lines to Omnibus here
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm

That experiment is flawed by conception.
It does not measure SMOT efficiency because it fails to measure input energy. Drop from the input is not input energy; think about it.

Cheers,
Tinu

Nonsense.
BS

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #171 on: January 29, 2008, 03:16:38 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline DA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #172 on: January 29, 2008, 03:58:25 PM »
Interestingly I found someone else has been thinking along similar lines to Omnibus here
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm

Just for the record, I have never claimed that a SMOT will or won't work.  I merely said that in my opinion the "proof" of Omnibus is invalid.  Perhaps there is, or will be, a valid proof someday.  If the Omnibus proof is valid, he should have no problem in compiling a long list of people who agree that it is valid, or at least a few.  This could happen.

Actually, I found the quoted link a bit interesting.  This person actually DID measure the energy gain of his SMOT, and obtained 0.424 mJ of energy gain. (whether or not it is correct I cannot tell).  He even shows a video of the measurement method.  After a few tries I got the video to work, and it "apparantly" shows the ball going farther with the SMOT than when just dropped from the exact same height without the SMOT.

What is more interesting is he claims to have constructed a circular SMOT, and was able to observe the ball rolling around the circle for 5 minutes, http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smot3pl.htm
However, he does state that he starts the ball from the top of a ramp, not the bottom.  On this same page he mentions selling SMOT 2 and SMOT 3 KITS, but this was 1997 and I haven't found any more reference to this.  Perhaps he quit selling kits.

Also on that page he has an unusual ramp design which uses only one magnet

While the last entry I could find dated was 1997, the site notes the last update was in 2005.


On another note, while I do not accept the Omnibus proof, I have noticed several people asking for discreet numbers instead of variables to make the proof valid.  I cannot agree with this, because there are many valid proofs that contain only variables.  Variables are numbers too, and fixed numbers are not necessary for a proof to be valid.

What I do object to, very much, is people using insults.  Things like "you are stupid" should have no place here.   While Omnibus seems to be the most prolific in spouting insults, he is not the only one.  Insults do not help discussions, and hinder the expression of ideas and possible progress.  Just because YOU THINK someone's idea is not workable, is no reason to call them "stupid" or any other derogatory term.  Just say that YOU THINK they are incorrect or that you do not understand, that is sufficient.

Even if someone is not what you consider intelligent, they can still have a brilliant idea.  Omnibus MAY be correct in that a SMOT can violate COE.  The number of people that agree or disagree has no effect, just as in the past most people agreed that man could not fly.  Many have correctly stated that it is their OPINION that it won't work, they are correct because they said it was their OPINION.

DA





Offline PolyMatrix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #173 on: January 29, 2008, 10:21:28 PM »
@DA

A little later he is 'selling' version 3 but embarasingly the kits never arived.

Still the fact that he did the calculations is interesting.

Edit. Still can't find an agreed method of calculating the work done by a magnet.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #173 on: January 29, 2008, 10:21:28 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline modervador

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #174 on: January 29, 2008, 10:44:30 PM »
I just thought I'd check in to this thread, since I see that my opinions have been cited. I've been working on another post to the other SMOT thread, but here's a quick paraphrase.

Omnibus and I do agree that Ea(final) > Ea(initial), and that (mgh1+mgh2+Kc) > Ein as well as (mgh1+mgh2+Kc) > Ea(initial). This is all a result of the total energy of the ball at point B being the sum of initial and imparted energies, transformed through potential and kinetic energies from B through C to A. Because of the "transformation" part of CoE which isn't violated in SMOT, the total energy at point B, Eb is equal to Ec, the total energy at C. Thus we have

Etotal = Ea(initial) + Ein = Eb = Ec = Ea(final)
Etotal = Ma + (mgh1+Mb-Ma) = mgh1 + Mb = mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc = Ma + Ka

Note that I have consistently defined Ea(final) as the total energy of the ball at the end of its run when returned to point A, but BEFORE it loses any of its kinetic energy. I now define a new variable, Ea(ultimate) = Ea(final) minus its kinetic energy, i.e. measured AFTER the ball has encountered the "bumper" at point A and its kinetic energy is used or lost as heat and/or sound. Thus it can be shown that when the ball is once again at rest,

Ea(ultimate) = Ea(final) - Ka = (Ma + Ka) - Ka = Ma = Ea(initial)




Offline modervador

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #175 on: January 29, 2008, 10:51:18 PM »
Still the fact that he did the calculations is interesting.

This is in reference to Naudin's "output measurements" of SMOT. The differences he saw are attributable to the friction losses of a ball falling into a tube from a rolling start vs. starting from dead standstill.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #175 on: January 29, 2008, 10:51:18 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #176 on: January 29, 2008, 11:24:18 PM »
Still the fact that he did the calculations is interesting.

This is in reference to Naudin's "output measurements" of SMOT. The differences he saw are attributable to the friction losses of a ball falling into a tube from a rolling start vs. starting from dead standstill.

Excellent point, as usual!
But also the ?choice? of the ball to free fall out of SMOT from its entrance instead of going up the ramp as it usually does is telling me that ?input measurements? involves a systematic methodological error caused by the ball positioning, error that at least has to be estimated and only then neglected if proved totally negligible. Disagree?

Anyway, at loses of 34% I wonder why no one told it?s not advisable to use glue inside the tube. ;)

Respectfully,
Tinu

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #177 on: January 30, 2008, 12:20:01 AM »
I just thought I'd check in to this thread, since I see that my opinions have been cited. I've been working on another post to the other SMOT thread, but here's a quick paraphrase.

Omnibus and I do agree that Ea(final) > Ea(initial), and that (mgh1+mgh2+Kc) > Ein as well as (mgh1+mgh2+Kc) > Ea(initial). This is all a result of the total energy of the ball at point B being the sum of initial and imparted energies, transformed through potential and kinetic energies from B through C to A. Because of the "transformation" part of CoE which isn't violated in SMOT, the total energy at point B, Eb is equal to Ec, the total energy at C. Thus we have

Etotal = Ea(initial) + Ein = Eb = Ec = Ea(final)
Etotal = Ma + (mgh1+Mb-Ma) = mgh1 + Mb = mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc = Ma + Ka

Note that I have consistently defined Ea(final) as the total energy of the ball at the end of its run when returned to point A, but BEFORE it loses any of its kinetic energy. I now define a new variable, Ea(ultimate) = Ea(final) minus its kinetic energy, i.e. measured AFTER the ball has encountered the "bumper" at point A and its kinetic energy is used or lost as heat and/or sound. Thus it can be shown that when the ball is once again at rest,

Ea(ultimate) = Ea(final) - Ka = (Ma + Ka) - Ka = Ma = Ea(initial)




No, this is misleading. I already explained that many, many times. For instance here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3949.msg73823.html#msg73823

It is imperative to understand that CoE requires nothing else to be compared but the energy imparted to the ball and the energy that is spontaneously transformed into other energies when the ball returns at its initial position. Any other comparison of energies is due only to confusion or to dishonestly mislead those who are already confused to begin with, as is the case with @modervador's "argument".

I'll repeat for the umptieth time that the obvious discrepancy between the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) imparted to the ball to remove it from its initial position and the energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) which the ball has available to be spontaneously transformed in other energies when it returns at the initial position is the sole viable criterion proving violation of CoE.

@modervador knows this very well, however, his dishonesty doesn't allow him to admit explicitly that my argument is correct and that SMOT violates CoE. Thus, he finagles and desperately writes texts wrapped in gobbledygook just to appear that he has to say something hoping that it will pass before the mostly confused public in these forums. That's a shame. 

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #178 on: January 30, 2008, 12:24:27 AM »
Still the fact that he did the calculations is interesting.

This is in reference to Naudin's "output measurements" of SMOT. The differences he saw are attributable to the friction losses of a ball falling into a tube from a rolling start vs. starting from dead standstill.
This is another nonsense from @modervador. Since he is trying to involve himself in discussing Naudin's experiment he should know better that both the reference experiment and the experiment with SMOT are carried out from "dead standstill", as he puts it. The difference he mentions is non existent. Therefore, here is another example of deliberate attempt to mislead the already mostly confused readership of this thread.

Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #179 on: January 30, 2008, 01:14:52 AM »
Still the fact that he did the calculations is interesting.

This is in reference to Naudin's "output measurements" of SMOT. The differences he saw are attributable to the friction losses of a ball falling into a tube from a rolling start vs. starting from dead standstill.
This is another nonsense from @modervador. Since he is trying to involve himself in discussing Naudin's experiment he should know better that both the reference experiment and the experiment with SMOT are carried out from "dead standstill", as he puts it. The difference he mentions is non existent. Therefore, here is another example of deliberate attempt to mislead the already mostly confused readership of this thread.

Please let the man speak freely!
I am interested in reading his posts but a lot less in reading yours. This may change if you could refrain from making so many elementary mistakes. Here the point is clear and I?ll restate it for your easy understanding: yes, both experiments are carried out from dead standstill but in one the ball enters the tube rolling and in the other experiment it enters not-rolling. As you should know, the drag coefficients are very different for the two cases.
Admitting your mistake and apologizing for it and also for your insults would be just appropriate but I don?t put many hopes in seeing such conduct from your side. At least refrain for the future.

Thanks,
Tinu

 

OneLink