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: 894395
  • *Total Topics: 15729
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 14

Author Topic: DEBATE THREAD  (Read 103278 times)

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #180 on: January 30, 2008, 01:22:05 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
Aha, you want to shut me up and prevent me from stating what the truth is so that @modervador could continue spewing his dishonest rantings which he has stated more than once. You gotta be kidding me.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #180 on: January 30, 2008, 01:22:05 AM »

Offline PolyMatrix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #181 on: January 30, 2008, 01:47:19 AM »
Insults are pointless. They only work if the other person cares about what you think of them. The truth is though that you can't make someone think what you want them to think. So what that person thinks of you is their problem not yours. You can't change your past. You can only learn from your history and try learning and thinking for yourself in the future. So if you accept that you exist and that one day you will die, for the time being we might as well just play these games of life and ignore insults as they are not going to change anything.

Offline DA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #182 on: January 30, 2008, 01:59:59 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)





Hi Modervator,

You have improved the initial Omnibus proof.  Well done.  You used both = and > which is much clearer.  As a suggestion, for a proof to be valid the quantities must be well defined, to see you strictly define what Ea(final) and Ea(ultimate) really mean helps the proof immensely, so both can be used in equations during the proof.  You seem to have the best grasp of both the proper notation and the SMOT.

To help other people discuss the proof, write out the entire proof in standard notation;
----------------------------
1 State theory
2Define terms
3Then starting with a statement of the initial conditions,
4 follow logically through the steps, with each step already proved.
5 only one thought per line, as in all well written proofs.
6 And end with the result.
---------------------------------------

It is important to make only ONE change per line of the proof, even when obvious.  When this is done well, someone trying to understand the proof can point to just one step, and say something like, "I don't see how you get from 2 to 3?"  and everyone knows what he means.

I haven't seen a proof of SMOT done properly yet, but I haven't read all the posts.  I have asked where a valid proof is located, but have not found any acceptable.  Yet I have not given up.  This thread is the most promising hope I have of finding a real proof that SMOT can gain energy.  There are a lot of good people thinking about it, and using this thread to communicate and share knowledge. 

I do think a gain in energy is possible.

I would like to see a well written proof.

One line at at time.

Who want's to start? 

-----------------------------------------------
Proof that SMOT can gain energy

Define Ea(initial)
Define ...
Define ...

If
Ea(initial) = Ea(initial)

Then

and so on

Do it right.  I will try to help.  It has been done this way for centuries, and the reason it is done this way, is because it works!  The formal proof system helps humans to work together, as a team, to solve a problem.  Together, we can do anything.  Everyone is worthwhile.

DA

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #182 on: January 30, 2008, 01:59:59 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline PolyMatrix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #183 on: January 30, 2008, 02:29:10 AM »
@DA

Thanks that last post should be a sticky.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #184 on: January 30, 2008, 03:37:01 AM »
@DA,

I appreciate that but all these terms have been well defined throughout thousands of post we have exchanged in the course of time. All these integrals Ma and Mb have been written and discussed extensively. All other quantities too. Unfortunately, this isn't a peer-reviewed archival medium of the type some of us are used to. This is a new medium to exchange ideas, characterized by its brevity and patchy nature and one has to have followed the whole trend of discussion throughout the months and years. That's too bad but that's how it is.

Now, this problem has been settled long ago, SMOT has already been definitively proven to violate CoE. @modervador knows this very well but he takes advantage of the periodic resurfacing of the debate to try to sway it in the direction he originally intended (helped by the confusion of many a "debater") but was proven wrong. This is nothing else but his ego trip.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #184 on: January 30, 2008, 03:37:01 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #185 on: January 30, 2008, 03:45:49 AM »
mah-ha-ha ha-ha, I see the polyphase mind matrix reconfiguration contraption is producing the desired effects.  I feel the power!!  From now on people will think what I want them to think!  Yeah.



Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

. . . The truth is though that you can't make someone think what you want them to think. . . .

Offline PolyMatrix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #186 on: January 30, 2008, 03:49:27 AM »
@Bessler

Proof? As @DA suggests

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #186 on: January 30, 2008, 03:49:27 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #187 on: January 30, 2008, 04:11:07 AM »
Unfortunately, this isn't a peer-reviewed archival medium of the type some of us are used to. This is a new medium to exchange ideas, characterized by its brevity and patchy nature and one has to have followed the whole trend of discussion throughout the months and years. That's too bad but that's how it is.

This is an interesting point.  The forum is peer-review but maybe not the sort thought of when the term is used.  The difference might be "who's your peer" when you're here.  Yes, some of us really drag down the IQ of the entire body of peers.

It seems to me that if a complicated point is worth making it should be put at some site one has control over, that people can be referred to when asking about the matter.  That would save people the time of rooting through clutter of a long rambling thread.  Then they would be more able to examine the basis for the point and add to the discussion.

That would be an efficient manner to handle this "proof a SMOT exhibits a violation of CoE".


PolyMatrix,

It would be very nice if there were some repository of a proof as DA suggests.  I couldn't agree more.  Good show, DA.

Bessler007

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #188 on: January 30, 2008, 04:22:29 AM »
No, the forum isn't peer-reviewed.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #188 on: January 30, 2008, 04:22:29 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline PolyMatrix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #189 on: January 30, 2008, 04:23:47 AM »
First we have to define a peer  :D

Offline Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #190 on: January 30, 2008, 04:26:10 AM »
Omnibus,

If you would do as I suggest and I can't notice any flaw I do have the ear of a rather impressive mathematician who might see something in what you have to say.  If you're looking for a substantial review of your idea then post it on a site and I can practically assure you a very serious review will happen.


Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

edit:  You have no idea who among your equals is reading.  Unless you just so happen to be God; in that event I'll grant you no peers are reading this.

edit2:  Peswiki would be a good repository for this proof.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #190 on: January 30, 2008, 04:26:10 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #191 on: January 30, 2008, 04:31:05 AM »
Peers for the purposes of evaluating scientific research are experts with proven track record and credentials in the field, appointed by the Editor of a peer-reviewed journal to evaluate the merits of a manuscript submitted for publication. This isn't the case here.

Offline Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #192 on: January 30, 2008, 04:34:33 AM »
ic, you are afraid to have your idea rigorously examined.  Nice excuse but I wouldn't want to make a pot out of it.  It wouldn't hold water.


Bessler007

Offline Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #193 on: January 30, 2008, 04:57:01 AM »
This is an absolute fact that everyone reading should be apprised of.  There is no proof of a violation of the 1st Law offered in any fashion by any degreed physicist in any peer-reviewed publication in the world at a level visible with the naked eye.  Not one.

Here is another fact.  Any physicist that had a cogent argument supporting any violation of CoE would (upon publishing such a proof) become a world renown physicist.

One final fact.  Any physicist claiming to have a proof yet refusing to publish is a liar.  There are a few corollaries to these facts.


Bessler007

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #194 on: January 30, 2008, 05:04:13 AM »
Things are much more complicated than you present them. You should speak, for instance, with @Demosthenes fro Steorn forum to learn more.

 

OneLink