# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: Bruce_TPU on January 20, 2008, 05:07:48 AM

Post by: Bruce_TPU on January 20, 2008, 05:07:48 AM
I have started this thread for those of you who have a beef with another.  You can take it over here, and not clutter our threads!

Many Thanks,
Bruce
Post by: supersam on January 20, 2008, 05:25:39 AM
thanks bruce,

shutinup, shutinup!!! thanks to all

lol
sam
Post by: psychopath on January 20, 2008, 06:48:08 AM
Lets start a debate about the SMOT, since it almost always turns up in other threads.

First discussion starter:
Is is possible to make the ball drop higher than the start position(even if it's 1 mm)?

Second discussion starter:
Does the ball gain any extra energy?

Let these two questions guide you through a heated debate!
Post by: hansvonlieven on January 20, 2008, 07:03:23 AM
Lets start a debate about the SMOT, since it almost always turns up in other threads.

First discussion starter:
Is is possible to make the ball drop higher than the start position(even if it's 1 mm)?

Second discussion starter:
Does the ball gain any extra energy?

Let these two questions guide you through a heated debate!

Am I allowed to push it with my finger??

Hans von Lieven
Post by: supersam on January 20, 2008, 08:10:59 AM
@hanz,

only if you can account for the energy imparted.

lol
sam
ps: i know this is probably not how it is going to be presented in technical mathematical formulas, but that is the way everyone but omnibus sees it. except for the physicists that dare debate him.
Post by: BEP on January 22, 2008, 04:20:50 AM
hmmm...

There is always a little push involved. Those not accounting for it need a little 'finger'.

PM devices that do not start on their own are not devices. They are paper weights. There is no point in debating such things.

If it doesn't work - it doesn't work. If it does work then prove it when folks ask or don't make the statement that it does. I avoid making such claims anymore. It is a waste of forum load and probably the cause of most of the server problems of this site.

Such debates and knuckle-wacking has only driven important ideas and proof back undeground.

We have seen some really great ideas surface here -and- watched them sink into oblivion due to the whacko's. I know. I'm one of the whackos but I keep my mouth shut now (most of the time ;D
Post by: RunningBare on January 22, 2008, 04:38:02 AM
Quote
We have seen some really great ideas surface here -and- watched them sink into oblivion due to the whacko's.

Ever consider they sank into oblivion because there was nothing to begin with?

When I read about suppression conspiracies and the like, I never know wether to laugh or cry.
Here we are on the internet, information flowing freely, over abundance of plans in pdf, and other forms, yet we have not seen one successful replication to show over unity/perpetual motion.

Heres the crux, if big oil and the like really felt threatened I've no doubt that websites like this would vanish into oblivion, now ask yourself why they do not feel threatened, could it be because we've not seen any provable successful replications yet?

I do not believe that its possible to "create" energy, I do however believe that there are new and better sources of energy to be tapped.

There was a time we did not know that electricity existed, remember, it was Thors hammer that created the lightening (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Post by: BEP on January 22, 2008, 05:04:22 AM
Thor's hammer doesn't? Is this one of those put up or shut up times?

I don't think there needs to be a conspiracy. I'm pretty sure the thought is to just let it run its course - if there ever is a course.
Same here on energy. If OU is found it is only proof that all was not considered. Lightning was OU at one time. So was fire.

I think some of these things are valid but there are only three workable choices. Keep it to yourself and do what you can to make your life easier -or- try to share it in public and burn with the witches or share it privately and watch the idiots burn with the witches.

Yes. Most sank because they were not tried or were and failed or they were sick attempts to stir the masses.

BTW: There have been web sites that just don't exist now or when they did exist. Even to the point they were gone within minutes even in the Akamai cache.
Post by: psychopath on January 22, 2008, 10:24:49 AM
hmmm...

There is always a little push involved. Those not accounting for it need a little 'finger'.

PM devices that do not start on their own are not devices. They are paper weights. There is no point in debating such things.

If it doesn't work - it doesn't work. If it does work then prove it when folks ask or don't make the statement that it does. I avoid making such claims anymore. It is a waste of forum load and probably the cause of most of the server problems of this site.

Such debates and knuckle-wacking has only driven important ideas and proof back undeground.

We have seen some really great ideas surface here -and- watched them sink into oblivion due to the whacko's. I know. I'm one of the whackos but I keep my mouth shut now (most of the time ;D

A little push? The smot I built doesn't need a push, it starts itself. I even used an electromagnet to make sure, by turning it off to let the ball go. Except the thing is I haven't managed to make it fall somewhere higher than its start.

Quote
We have seen some really great ideas surface here -and- watched them sink into oblivion due to the whacko's.

I think it's because people don't have ideas anymore. I don't post much but I've been an active lurker here for a long time, and people actually used to come up with their own new ideas. Now it's mostly "Hey look at this new overunity device on youtube", which mostly turns out to be a hoax.
Post by: RunningBare on January 22, 2008, 01:07:58 PM
This is for omnibus

I can only assume that you have got your whipmag replication working, otherwise why would you be telling other people their theories and ideas are wrong.

On the other hand if you have not got it working then you know as much as the rest of us at this point, NOTHING.

It's disappointing really, you started out good in that particular whipmag thread, but now you have gone back to your old ways, please dont spoil that thread with your usual obsessiveness.
Post by: Rosphere on January 22, 2008, 07:25:23 PM
Consider the simple experimental device shown here.

(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7.0;attach=16726;image)

The large flywheel is joined to the small pulley wheel and this assembly is free to spin on an axis.  A string is wrapped around the pulley and attached to a movable magnet.  Another magnet is introduced in attraction mode at some distance away from the first.  Now for a couple rhetorical questions:

Will the flywheel accelerate?

Will the flywheel continue to run indefinitely?

I was intrigued with the acceleration in Al's OC MPMM video for many days.  Now I am thinking that Al's device is nothing more than a complex version of this device.  I really do hope that I am wrong about this.
Post by: hansvonlieven on January 22, 2008, 09:06:16 PM
BTW: There have been web sites that just don't exist now or when they did exist. Even to the point they were gone within minutes even in the Akamai cache.

G'day BEP and all,

There could be any number of reasons why a website gets taken off and all record of it gets deleted also. When you visit a website not all content is visible to you if the owner so wishes.

On my website I have a number of pages that are inaccessible to the public and where I send the URL to the people that I want to read it. It is a useful thing.

This kind of mechanism can also be abused. Set up a technical type of site and put your terrorist ideas, kiddieporn, or your drug trafficking instructions on hidden pages that are only accessible to people in the know. It is easy enough to do.

It needn't be a suppression of emerging technology to see such sites disappear.

Just a thought.

Hans von Lieven.
Post by: DA on January 22, 2008, 09:47:23 PM
This is for omnibus

I can only assume that you have got your whipmag replication working, otherwise why would you be telling other people their theories and ideas are wrong.

On the other hand if you have not got it working then you know as much as the rest of us at this point, NOTHING.

It's disappointing really, you started out good in that particular whipmag thread, but now you have gone back to your old ways, please dont spoil that thread with your usual obsessiveness.

Poor Omnibus, everyone picks on Omnibus.  I find his posts more interesting than most.  He is always most frank, and will not spare your feelings when telling you that you are wrong.  This shows a very strong inner honesty, he is unable to lie to you about your faults. He's not wishy-washy about it either, he'll tell you that you are wrong even before he understands what you said.  This saves a lot of time, so that more people don't follow these "wrong" ideas.

Omnibus is also very good at keeping everyone "on track", reminding us that we must duplicate Al's machine exactly.  This thread is here for that one and only thing!  There are of course branches that Omnibus rightly finds worthy, and I'm glad he's here so I know which is which.

And don't forget that Omnibus is the first and only human to prove that overunity does exist, and has posted a video to show it.  It's real, it has measurements and a level and everything.  I haven't found his proof yet, but I have seen him mention it several times.  I sure would like to read it, anyone have a link to it?  I bet he's about to publish it at that university he teaches at, didn't someone mention he was a professor somewhere, or am I mistaken?

I haven't replicated his video yet, I don't have the proper magnets yet.  Did he mention which ones he used?

I wish he'd post a video of his replication of the whip mag.  I think he said the results were "encouraging" at first.  I bet he's just fine tuning it for the video and it'll be the best one yet.

We should be glad to have Omnibus around, he has many good qualities.

Look for the diamond, it might be buried in mud and hard to see, but it's there.
Post by: PolyMatrix on January 23, 2008, 02:52:42 AM
Well I have put up two a half-baked ideas, one about smot based on some of the research I have been doing, the other on a curious effect seen in a 'singing' bowl.

I would also like to know an explanation for the Tibetan Bowl effect, which helped me think up another half-baked idea.

{Rant mode on, with apologies to sceptics}
Why does it 'feel' like the sceptics just sit on the sidelines comfortable and secure in their 'correct' reality even bother with the apparent Ã‚â€˜eccentricÃ‚â€™ chatter? If the 'eccentric' people are happily tinkering and not harming anyone why bother them. For me this needling of the 'eccentric' seems very childish, arrogant and counterproductive. The only things that may be gained from this is the 'feeling' of higher status in society and making the stubborn 'eccentric' work harder. They can not {sceptics} be bothered to check out the facts presented to them because they do not come from established authorities, nor do they seem to wish to think for themselves and just let their curiosity be seeing entertainment value taking a peek at what the 'eccentric' is up to.
{rant off}

The vid of a SMOT built of Lego is very much proof that it works. There is also a vid from a physics fare showing water running up hill. Yet I still see posts saying it can't possibly be true, and I am not going to be moved from this viewpoint.

'Eccentrics' appreciate constructive criticisms like "Did you remember to check/look for wind resistance" because sometimes a person can get tunnel vision and not see the metal wrench is what is affecting his experiment. Ask any programmer why he tells the monitor exactly why his program should be working when it is not.

I donÃ‚â€™t expect anything to happen but at least I have found a forum that just might find someone curious enough and bright enough to have a bit of fun by building and trying out a half-baked idea.
Post by: Bessler007 on January 23, 2008, 09:40:41 AM
PolyMatrix,

Bessler007
mib HQ
Post by: PolyMatrix on January 23, 2008, 05:57:43 PM
@Bessler007

Any emotions you feel with the words you read are entirly your own responsibility.
Post by: PolyMatrix on January 23, 2008, 10:27:03 PM
@Rosphere

We are also told that it ran for 7 hours.
Post by: Bessler007 on January 23, 2008, 10:41:28 PM
Absolutely no emotion in the cold, hard, analytical manner I look at your tripe.

Looks like tripe, smells like tripe, man I'm sure glad I didn't buy that crap.

Bessler007
mib HQ
Post by: Rosphere on January 23, 2008, 10:44:09 PM
@Rosphere

We are also told that it ran for 7 hours.

So it is not so much the acceleration to be excited about, but the duration.  Thank you.
Post by: PolyMatrix on January 24, 2008, 12:24:03 AM
@Bessler007

Please tell which of my statements is incorrect?

It is all very well calling it tripe but, exactly like the search for overunity, constructive critism is required so far there does not seem to be any logical argument from your point of view. Please prove to me that anything I have said that is not speculation is wrong.
Post by: BEP on January 24, 2008, 03:24:10 AM
Uh? I don't understand. Now what's wrong with tripe?

If you cook it right it isn't half bad.

The uses are only limited to your imagination.

If you bias it correctly it becomes a semi-conductor.

Bias it even more and it can be very illuminating - even for a schleptic that has no imagination.
Post by: RunningBare on January 25, 2008, 01:08:43 AM
I'm posting this here because it is not appropriate for the Whipmag thread

Now, that's a good idea. I, for one, won't need to read any of, say, @RunningBare's posts. None of them both here and in Steorn forum has contributed almost anything to the problem and I wish I had a way to just not see them at all. On another note, no offense, but at this moment I'd prefer to follow the discussion in just one thread where the most replicators have concentrated their discussion. Seems to me this one is the thread which, of course, may change in the future.

Come on Omni, show us what you got, now I freely admit that my replication is a piece of junk, but the major difference between me and you, and the reason you should keep you personal opinions about others to yourself is that you have shown nothing, so in my opinion you have got nothing but blather.
Post by: DA on January 25, 2008, 01:54:51 AM
I'm posting this here because it is not appropriate for the Whipmag thread

Now, that's a good idea. I, for one, won't need to read any of, say, @RunningBare's posts. None of them both here and in Steorn forum has contributed almost anything to the problem and I wish I had a way to just not see them at all. On another note, no offense, but at this moment I'd prefer to follow the discussion in just one thread where the most replicators have concentrated their discussion. Seems to me this one is the thread which, of course, may change in the future.

Come on Omni, show us what you got, now I freely admit that my replication is a piece of junk, but the major difference between me and you, and the reason you should keep you personal opinions about others to yourself is that you have shown nothing, so in my opinion you have got nothing but blather.

Come on Running Bear, your rep is certainly NOT a piece of junk.  I am looking forward to seeing the Omnibus replication.  We know he can do videos, as we saw with his proof of overunity video.  I can't find the link to that video at the moment, but it was very enlightening!  And don't forget, Omnibus is the only human to show a definite unequivicable PROOF of overunity.  I haven't seen this proof yet, but I still search for it every single day.  I must have pissed him off, as he hasn't posted a link to the proof for me yet, but I'm sure he will soon.

Let's give Omnibus a break.  We all know he is unbelieveable rude and inconsiderate at times, but this is common when dealing with a genius.  I'm sure we will learn much when he does have time to post a video of his replication.  He is just waiting for the proper magnets and bearings I believe.  He was in on this from the start, so it should not be long before we see his video.  I just hope it is as illuminating as his SMOT video!

DA
Post by: RunningBare on January 25, 2008, 02:04:57 AM

Come on Running Bear, your rep is certainly NOT a piece of junk.  I am looking forward to seeing the Omnibus replication.  We know he can do videos, as we saw with his proof of overunity video.  I can't find the link to that video at the moment, but it was very enlightening!  And don't forget, Omnibus is the only human to show a definite unequivicable PROOF of overunity.  I haven't seen this proof yet, but I still search for it every single day.  I must have pissed him off, as he hasn't posted a link to the proof for me yet, but I'm sure he will soon.

Let's give Omnibus a break.  We all know he is unbelieveable rude and inconsiderate at times, but this is common when dealing with a genius.  I'm sure we will learn much when he does have time to post a video of his replication.  He is just waiting for the proper magnets and bearings I believe.  He was in on this from the start, so it should not be long before we see his video.  I just hope it is as illuminating as his SMOT video!

DA

I'm an experimenter not a diplomat  (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif)

But I'm certain if Omni can give it, he has no problem in taking it.
Post by: DA on January 25, 2008, 02:30:17 AM

Come on Running Bear, your rep is certainly NOT a piece of junk.  I am looking forward to seeing the Omnibus replication.  We know he can do videos, as we saw with his proof of overunity video.  I can't find the link to that video at the moment, but it was very enlightening!  And don't forget, Omnibus is the only human to show a definite unequivicable PROOF of overunity.  I haven't seen this proof yet, but I still search for it every single day.  I must have pissed him off, as he hasn't posted a link to the proof for me yet, but I'm sure he will soon.

Let's give Omnibus a break.  We all know he is unbelieveable rude and inconsiderate at times, but this is common when dealing with a genius.  I'm sure we will learn much when he does have time to post a video of his replication.  He is just waiting for the proper magnets and bearings I believe.  He was in on this from the start, so it should not be long before we see his video.  I just hope it is as illuminating as his SMOT video!

DA

I'm an experimenter not a diplomat  (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif)

But I'm certain if Omni can give it, he has no problem in taking it.

good, I'm glad your not a diplomat.  That's like a politician, isn't it?  I have scant use for politicians.

Seriously, Omnibus has referred to his proof of overunity many times, and I really would like to read it.  I do have a degree in Mathematics, so proofs do interest me.  I probably would not understand it completely, but I would like to read it.  Probably because of my lack of search skill, I have been unable to find it.  If anyone can give me a link to it, and to his video demonstration, I would really appreciate it.  I do want to correlate the proof with the video example.

DA
Post by: hoptoad on January 25, 2008, 10:23:39 AM
Seriously, Omnibus has referred to his proof of overunity many times, and I really would like to read it.  I do have a degree in Mathematics, so proofs do interest me.  I probably would not understand it completely, but I would like to read it.  Probably because of my lack of search skill, I have been unable to find it.  If anyone can give me a link to it, and to his video demonstration, I would really appreciate it.  I do want to correlate the proof with the video example.
DA
@DA - You're obviously referring to Omni-bullshits pathetic video where he shows a ball bearing being drawn up a ramp by a magnet, and he uses a ruler showing the height above the table at one end and then the other to show that indeed the ramp is sloping in an upward incline. Wow!  ::)  A magnet pulls a ball up a ramp (after he has placed it into position with his hand), then proceeds to fall off the ramp into a bowl. After which he picks up the ball with his hand and tries it all over again.

Then he obsessively claims that this is proof of O/U - Duh!  ::)

All it proves is what science already knows. That magnets can attract a steel ball, and that the potential energy imparted in the first place by his hand, combined with the magnetic potential of the ramp, gives the ball enough momentum to proceed past the sticking point at the end and fall off the ramp and continue with the aid of gravity. But the ball never once has enough excess kinetic energy to lift itself back onto the ramp (unaided by his hand) to complete a single loop, let alone loop continuously.

Omni-bullshit tries to get around this with the words "discontinuous excess energy", which is a furfy, since any excess energy in the first place would contribute to the ball's ability to return to the exact starting point and loop all over again. After all, the losses though friction from a solid steel ball on a solid surface over the distances involved would be so miniscule, that they could be treated as non existent for the purposes of the experiment involved.

Even if his theory is correct, (which it isn't),  if the amount of "discontinuous excess energy" is so feeble that the ball cannot return to the beginning of the ramp, and hence form a loop, then what is the point of the entire exercise, (and subsequent debate)  when the main objective of the majority of forums members is to extract usable energy for practical purposes.

The only usable energy from Omni-bullshit regarding the SMOT, is all the hot air he would expire if this were an audible forum instead of a written one.

The only loop that is ever complete is Omni-bullshits loopy theory. Even if the theory were somehow correct, which it isn't, it wouldn't be the first theory that is self evident in theory (and it isn't) but has no actual basis in reality, and it will probably not be the last.
Post by: PolyMatrix on January 25, 2008, 12:18:19 PM
Where do you start to calculate the amount of energy into a system and similarly the amount out?

Do we start with the big bang, if that is the accepted theory of the creation of the universe?

What is the accepted way that physics experiments start and end these calculations?
Post by: tinu on January 25, 2008, 01:00:56 PM
...
I am looking forward to seeing the Omnibus replication.  We know he can do videos, as we saw with his proof of overunity video.  I can't find the link to that video at the moment, but it was very enlightening!  And don't forget, Omnibus is the only human to show a definite unequivicable PROOF of overunity.  I haven't seen this proof yet, but I still search for it every single day.  I must have pissed him off, as he hasn't posted a link to the proof for me yet, but I'm sure he will soon.
...

...
Seriously, Omnibus has referred to his proof of overunity many times, and I really would like to read it.  I do have a degree in Mathematics, so proofs do interest me.  I probably would not understand it completely, but I would like to read it.  Probably because of my lack of search skill, I have been unable to find it.  If anyone can give me a link to it, and to his video demonstration, I would really appreciate it.  I do want to correlate the proof with the video example.

DA

Omnibus indeed has referred to his proof of CoE violation many times (maybe too many times but that?s just my opinion) and I was also looking for that proof for quite a long time until I concluded there is none. Consequently, a long discussion was provoked and you can see its outcome (and the answer you look for) at http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3417.0/topicseen.html
It started about OC MPMM but then it completely shifted to SMOT.

Although my mind is made on the subject (and it happened with quite a great disappointment, I?d say), I?ll look forward to read your comments.

Cheers,
Tinu
Post by: Low-Q on January 25, 2008, 02:02:24 PM

Come on Running Bear, your rep is certainly NOT a piece of junk.  I am looking forward to seeing the Omnibus replication.  We know he can do videos, as we saw with his proof of overunity video.  I can't find the link to that video at the moment, but it was very enlightening!  And don't forget, Omnibus is the only human to show a definite unequivicable PROOF of overunity.  I haven't seen this proof yet, but I still search for it every single day.  I must have pissed him off, as he hasn't posted a link to the proof for me yet, but I'm sure he will soon.

Let's give Omnibus a break.  We all know he is unbelieveable rude and inconsiderate at times, but this is common when dealing with a genius.  I'm sure we will learn much when he does have time to post a video of his replication.  He is just waiting for the proper magnets and bearings I believe.  He was in on this from the start, so it should not be long before we see his video.  I just hope it is as illuminating as his SMOT video!

DA

I'm an experimenter not a diplomat  (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif)

But I'm certain if Omni can give it, he has no problem in taking it.

good, I'm glad your not a diplomat.  That's like a politician, isn't it?  I have scant use for politicians.

Seriously, Omnibus has referred to his proof of overunity many times, and I really would like to read it. I do have a degree in Mathematics, so proofs do interest me.  I probably would not understand it completely, but I would like to read it.  Probably because of my lack of search skill, I have been unable to find it.  If anyone can give me a link to it, and to his video demonstration, I would really appreciate it.  I do want to correlate the proof with the video example.

DA
Hi,

Omnibus hasn't prooved anything yet. There is a lot of math which prooves violation of CoE, but the math is not complete, so what's the point? To determind a loop, you cannot pick a few points in the loop, calculate the average, and claim violation of CoE.

I however are looking forward to see a replication of a SMOT that violate CoE.

Vidar

Post by: tinu on January 25, 2008, 02:29:48 PM
I?m sorry but the math DOES NOT prove CoE violation. This must be a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding because the equations already posted actually disprove CoE violation without any doubt whatsoever.

Thanks,
Tinu
Post by: Omnibus on January 25, 2008, 03:29:42 PM
The equations already posted categorically prove violation of CoE in SMOT.

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) 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.
Post by: RunningBare on January 25, 2008, 04:02:52 PM
After rigorous analysis it has been proved beyond a doubt that omnibus has proved nothing.
Post by: DA on January 25, 2008, 04:20:23 PM
I?m sorry but the math DOES NOT prove CoE violation. This must be a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding because the equations already posted actually disprove CoE violation without any doubt whatsoever.

Thanks,
Tinu

I found the proof!  I think.  Very straightforward post by Omnibus in the thread mentioned above.

(from the great Ommibus)
"Thus, as seen in the above link (which doesn't work), when an amount of energy |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| is necessary to be imparted to the ball to raise it from A to the apex B then obviously the ball should lose exactly the same amount of energy |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| if it is to return from B to A. CoE is obeyed. However, if the same amount |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| of energy is imparted to the ball and the ball doesn't settle with B as an apex but, as experiment shows, instead reaches another apex C then, obviously, when the ball returns back at A the ball loses amount of energy different from the amount |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| imparted to it. This is in clear violation of CoE."

He calls this a proof?  Rigorous?  Irrefutable?  It says absolutely nothing.  To repeat |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| four times with some words and the letters A, B, and C interspersed says nothing, and proves or disproves nothing.

My faith in Omnibus is shaken, but I did find these other statements made by Omnibus in that thread.  He does seem to be fairly consistent.

"The one and only thing that really matters in such a case is actually building the device in flesh and blood and demonstrating that it really works."  (use flesh and blood, not HDPE and magnets!??)

"Go away @RunningBare. Your input isn't necessary. You have made no contributions to this field and your only role is to be a nuisance."

"You have no contributions. And you're not supporting these guys. You're a hypocrite. I have rarely seen anyone spew so much crap throughout all these years in a forum and have no shame."

"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."

"This analysis is incorrect."

"Don't clutter the thread with nonsense."

"This is obviously incorrect."

"If you don't have anything to contribute, as you obviously don't, restrain from posting."

"As for playing with a full deck, that's an unfair statement."

"Science requires to do the opposite of what you're saying."

"Science is a totalitarian system."

"No, you're wrong. "

"You and the likes of you who contribute nothing to the discussion at hand should be prevented from cluttering the thread."

"Your's is wishful thinking by someone who, as you've already demonstrated, doesn't know elementary things pertaining to the discussion but pushes impudently into it."

"Stop posting rubbish."

"You don't know how science works."

"Wrong. As I told you yesterday, go learn some physics and then come back."

"Stop with this nonsense."

"Go away. Learn some physics first and then come back."

"Stop posting crap here."

"This quote shows to what  great lengths of ridiculousness one can get in his desperate attempts not to admit his mistakes."

"Instead of being ashamed of yourself and quietly watch what's going on so that you can learn something you're participating in multiple threads arrogantly spewing utter nonsense teaching others what is and what isn't."

"Of course, I'm not wrong. Those who confuse force with energy are wrong."

"Restrain from showing your incompetence. You've shown enough."

"This last posting is a proof you have no understanding."

"This is a useless exchange. Learn some physics first before trying to understand this argument."

"Don't bother. You can't prove the unprovable. Like I said, learn some physics first and then come back for a discussion."

"No, that's incorrect."

"Stop cluttering the thread with this nonsense."

"You haven't understood it correctly."

"What you're saying is incorrect."

"You want to be funny, don't you? You forget, however, that physics isn't a comedy show."

"Don't even bother continuing this."

"No, I can't waste time to sort out your confusion."

"Your incoherent rantings should stop. This thread isn't a trash bin for intellectual garbage."

"What you're writing is nonsense. When somethings is nonsense it must be identified as such and that isn't derogatory."

"Stop filling this thread with crap."

"I will not stop asking you to cut out filling the thread with gibberish, be sure. Don't waste your time."

"I will not stop asking you to cut out filling the thread with gibberish, be sure. Don't waste your time."

"Stop insulting the intelligence of the readers."

"You are confused and should deal with your confusion first before bothering people with it."

"You have to do something about your gaps in understanding physics instead of trying to push it on others."

"Hey, idiot, . . ."

"Now, yours is really cretinism. What high school physics? You're not fit for grade school even, you moron."

"Only someone who has entirely lost his mind can claim such a thing. "

"You must be a complete idiot not to see this."

"Cut this out, you moron, that was explained numerous times already. and people shouldn't suffer from your mediocrity by reading infinite exchanges explaining the same thing."

"This is impudence to no end. You have no shame."

"Who are you to say that? A mediocrity impudently uttering nonsense."

"You are completely wrong and you must apologize again. I didn't start calling you names. You did."

Gee whillikers, this Omnibus guy is not very nice.  Rather quick with the insults!  Since his "proof" is obviously lacking, meaning it "proves" nothing, I am heartbroken.  He is so quick with insulting people for no reason, I can see why so many people would like to have him banned.  Add me to the list, ban him.
Post by: RunningBare on January 25, 2008, 04:30:52 PM
I can see why so many people would like to have him banned.  Add me to the list, ban him.

Dun hold your breath, Stef loves him (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
Post by: tinu on January 25, 2008, 04:32:33 PM
@DA,

LOL!
But there is a reason for insults: lack of any other arguments.
Post by: Omnibus on January 25, 2008, 04:37:12 PM
@DA,

Thanks for posting what really has to be said in this case. But be sure to read what I said and try to have it sink, don't just post it, because it applies to you too. Oh, and don't continue because you'll hear deservedly more of it. For people such as you truth is an insult but that doesn't mean your thinking should set the standard.
Post by: tinu on January 25, 2008, 04:51:24 PM
One raises a ball from A to B.
Then, by contemplating its free fall from B to A, in a spark of geniality he/she observes that the ball has not only kinetic energy but also a much larger one amounting mc2. Gee! That?s a huge amount of energy! Compared to it, mgh is nothing! So, one puts in mgh but the ball has mgh+mc2. It has to be overunity, right? And CoE violation is thus proved beyond any doubt...

Duh!
Same is with SMOT.
What has the imparted (input) energy to do with total energy?! Absolutely nothing.

Bottom line: When output energy will be properly defined and described by an equation other than Eout=0 (which is correct as shown in the dedicated thread), the subject of CoE violation is SMOT might be worthy to be re-opened again. Alternatively, a relevant experiment will do it as well.

Tinu
Post by: RunningBare on January 25, 2008, 04:57:43 PM
Like I said, the measurement in @alsetalokin's first video is messy and no advocacy can save it.

Well Omni, I was trying to help out, but obviously your the perfect person so no one has a hells chance in aiding you.
Post by: Omnibus on January 25, 2008, 05:02:35 PM
Like I said, the measurement in @alsetalokin's first video is messy and no advocacy can save it.

Well Omni, I was trying to help out, but obviously your the perfect person so no one has a hells chance in aiding you.
That's the wrong thread to post this, isn't it?
Post by: Omnibus on January 25, 2008, 05:03:19 PM
One raises a ball from A to B.
Then, by contemplating its free fall from B to A, in a spark of geniality he/she observes that the ball has not only kinetic energy but also a much larger one amounting mc2. Gee! That?s a huge amount of energy! Compared to it, mgh is nothing! So, one puts in mgh but the ball has mgh+mc2. It has to be overunity, right? And CoE violation is thus proved beyond any doubt...

Duh!
Same is with SMOT.
What has the imparted (input) energy to do with total energy?! Absolutely nothing.

Bottom line: When output energy will be properly defined and described by an equation other than Eout=0 (which is correct as shown in the dedicated thread), the subject of CoE violation is SMOT might be worthy to be re-opened again. Alternatively, a relevant experiment will do it as well.

Tinu

That's gibberish and gibberish can never serve as scientific proof.
Post by: Omnibus on January 25, 2008, 05:04:04 PM
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.
Post by: RunningBare on January 25, 2008, 05:05:15 PM
Like I said, the measurement in @alsetalokin's first video is messy and no advocacy can save it.

Well Omni, I was trying to help out, but obviously your the perfect person so no one has a hells chance in aiding you.
That's the wrong thread to post this, isn't it?

No, I dont want to pollute the other thread, thats what this one is for.
Post by: Omnibus on January 25, 2008, 05:06:40 PM
Like I said, the measurement in @alsetalokin's first video is messy and no advocacy can save it.

Well Omni, I was trying to help out, but obviously your the perfect person so no one has a hells chance in aiding you.
That's the wrong thread to post this, isn't it?

No, I dont want to pollute the other thread, thats what this one is for.
You're polluting any thread you post in, not just this one.
Post by: RunningBare on January 25, 2008, 05:31:32 PM
You're polluting any thread you post in, not just this one.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3949.msg73139.html#msg73139
Post by: Omnibus on January 25, 2008, 05:34:44 PM
You're polluting any thread you post in, not just this one.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3949.msg73139.html#msg73139
That's correct. Read it carefully because it applies especially to you. Stop polluting the discussions.
Post by: RunningBare on January 25, 2008, 05:42:31 PM
Come on omni, shows us yours you big hunk of stuff,..... lets see your replication of the whipmag.
Post by: Low-Q on January 25, 2008, 06:49:21 PM
The equations already posted categorically prove violation of CoE in SMOT.

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) 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.
The following is common knowledge, and basic physics.

As I have mentioned before: It takes no energy to move an object angular to a magnetic field and angular to gravity. Compare, and add up the angles and forces of both gravity and magnetism during the whole operation A-B-C-A, and you'll see that there is no extra energy applied to the ball. The ball must defy gravity and/or magnetic force in the loop A-B-C-A to gain energy, but this far there is no proof of such.

The ball would not be able to determine which way it would travel if point B was at the correct position. Point B in your calculations is not at the correct place, but a little bit too close the SMOT - where magnetism is more influed on the ball than the gravity is. The extra energy gained in the ball from B - C is therefor allready applied when the hand did place the ball at point B.
The ball must be placed where gravity and magnetic force cancels out. As I said: Point B is not at the correct place in yout calculations.

IMHO

Cheers!
Post by: Omnibus on January 25, 2008, 09:39:41 PM
The equations already posted categorically prove violation of CoE in SMOT.

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) 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.
The following is common knowledge, and basic physics.

As I have mentioned before: It takes no energy to move an object angular to a magnetic field and angular to gravity. Compare, and add up the angles and forces of both gravity and magnetism during the whole operation A-B-C-A, and you'll see that there is no extra energy applied to the ball. The ball must defy gravity and/or magnetic force in the loop A-B-C-A to gain energy, but this far there is no proof of such.

The ball would not be able to determine which way it would travel if point B was at the correct position. Point B in your calculations is not at the correct place, but a little bit too close the SMOT - where magnetism is more influed on the ball than the gravity is. The extra energy gained in the ball from B - C is therefor allready applied when the hand did place the ball at point B.
The ball must be placed where gravity and magnetic force cancels out. As I said: Point B is not at the correct place in yout calculations.

IMHO

Cheers!
Like I've told you many times regarding that "argument", it's nonsense.
Post by: Low-Q on January 26, 2008, 12:40:51 AM
Your calcs is correct, but are based on wrong conditions.
Post by: Omnibus on January 26, 2008, 12:44:51 AM
Your calcs is correct, but are based on wrong conditions.
Never mind. Don't bother. You have no clue.
Post by: psychopath on January 26, 2008, 03:33:21 AM
I was just wondering, could anyone give proof why the smot doesn't work? Omnibus has offered proof why it does work, but where is the proof why it doesn't work? A one line sentence like "It'll never work" is not proof.

I've seen heaps of proof why gravity wheels don't work, and other simple magnet track motors, but I have yet to see one for the smot.

ps I've mostly seen repetitions of the wikipedia explanation why it shouldn't work, but that isn't proof.
Post by: RunningBare on January 26, 2008, 03:52:44 AM
I was just wondering, could anyone give proof why the smot doesn't work? Omnibus has offered proof why it does work, but where is the proof why it doesn't work? A one line sentence like "It'll never work" is not proof.

I've seen heaps of proof why gravity wheels don't work, and other simple magnet track motors, but I have yet to see one for the smot.

ps I've mostly seen repetitions of the wikipedia explanation why it shouldn't work, but that isn't proof.

Over 20 years since the first SMOT and still no free energy from it?, I know I know, its an on going engineering problem (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/cool.gif)
Post by: psychopath on January 26, 2008, 06:00:49 AM
I was just wondering, could anyone give proof why the smot doesn't work? Omnibus has offered proof why it does work, but where is the proof why it doesn't work? A one line sentence like "It'll never work" is not proof.

I've seen heaps of proof why gravity wheels don't work, and other simple magnet track motors, but I have yet to see one for the smot.

ps I've mostly seen repetitions of the wikipedia explanation why it shouldn't work, but that isn't proof.

Over 20 years since the first SMOT and still no free energy from it?, I know I know, its an on going engineering problem (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/cool.gif)

What? Guess what, people were trying to fly for hundreds of years, and for hundreds of years it was "impossible". That's not a logical argument.

If you want to say that smots don't work, then provide proof. I am not saying that if you don't provide proof that the smot works, I'm saying that without proof that it doesn't work, you can't say it doesn't work.

Post by: Omnibus on January 26, 2008, 06:29:38 AM
Well said.

Recall that that has also been the ?logic? behind the proposal of the 26 year old Helmholts, a neophyte medical doctor with no physics background, for the impossibility to produce energy out of nothing (excess energy), namely, that no device has been created up until then which can produce excess energy, therefore, creating of such device is impossible. Ridiculous ?logic? isn?t it? No wonder that no serious journal during his time has accepted for publication Helmholtz? paper containing that bogus thesis and we only know of it due to a series of lectures he delivered at some meeting. Obviously, that was to the liking of the powers that be promoting this idea as a general principle and proclaiming its proponent as one of the most important scientists of all time. How unfortunate ? Of course, we now know that it is possible to produce energy out of nothing and therefore CoE cannot be considered a general principle. The first time this was shown rigorously is in connection with the SMOT which produces excess energy discontinuously. Now, knowing that, it?s only a matter of time to have a working self-sustaining device constructed, producing excess energy continuously. This is only a matter of skillful engineering efforts which sooner or later will emerge and will bring such device to the fore. It should be noted that even if we don?t have such device created, possibility to violate CoE is firmly established and that is unconnected with whether or not such self-sustaining device exists.
Post by: hoptoad on January 26, 2008, 07:44:34 AM
[
What? Guess what, people were trying to fly for hundreds of years, and for hundreds of years it was "impossible". That's not a logical argument.

If you want to say that smots don't work, then provide proof. I am not saying that if you don't provide proof that the smot works, I'm saying that without proof that it doesn't work, you can't say it doesn't work.
@ Psychopath

The majority of forum members who enter into discussions with Omni-bullshit are open minded to the possibility that a SMOT may one day be enabled to work, given the correct ingredients of theory and experimental results on which to base an engineered outcome. For the record I am not one of them, but I have never made claims that it is impossible. If a working SMOT loop should suddenly appear, I will gladly eat humble pie and admit that I backed the wrong horse!

Most forum members (though not all) do not make "claims" that it cannot or will not ever work. The issue regarding SMOT, is Omni-bullshits insistence that he has indisputable "proof" that it can, will and does work.

When challenged to produce a working model based on his erroneous theory, he simply resorts to semantic evasions, and proffers the excuse that it is not necessary for him to offer a practical working model, in spite of the fact that he expects this from others as shown by the following quote from another thread in which Omni-bullshit says: - "The one and only thing that really matters in such a case is actually building the device in flesh and blood and demonstrating that it really works."

Omni-bullshit fails to practice what he preaches at every level of discussion.

It is not incumbent on anybody to "disprove" something if they have made no claims, but it is incumbent on those who make "claims" to back them up with proof. In this regard, Omni-bullshit has failed miserably, but instead of admitting it, he resorts to insults and bullying.

If you don't think that a claim should be backed up with proof, then consider this: I have the answer to life, the universe, and everything, just send me a cheque for a million dollars and this knowledge can be yours! Yours truly, the tooth fairy.  ;D
Post by: Omnibus on January 26, 2008, 07:50:59 AM

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.
Post by: psychopath on January 26, 2008, 07:53:40 AM
Quote
If you don't think that a claim should be backed up with proof, then consider this: I have the answer to life, the universe, and everything, just send me a cheque for a million dollars and this knowledge can be yours!

I do think that a claim should be backed up by proof. This is exactly what omnibus has done! Unless you think that the proof itself needs to be "proven"?

Post by: hoptoad on January 26, 2008, 08:08:10 AM

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.
Tell someone who cares. Your opinions are, to quote your own words, "inconsequential!"
Post by: Low-Q on January 26, 2008, 09:50:24 AM
No, there is no proof yet displayed by math, or video, that SMOT violates CoE. Remove the hand, and close the loop, and see what happens. Cheers!
Post by: Low-Q on January 26, 2008, 10:03:44 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
Post by: psychopath on January 26, 2008, 10:35:38 AM
By the way, now I am really curious, has anyone managed to get the ball drop to a position level with the starting point or higher? This seems to be my current challenge...
Post by: Low-Q on January 26, 2008, 12:17:37 PM
@psychopath, I don't follow you. What do you mean.

Cheers
Post by: psychopath on January 26, 2008, 12:35:14 PM
@psychopath, I don't follow you. What do you mean.

Cheers

I've attatched an image(I hope).

What I meant was if anyone has made a smot where the starting position of the ball was equal to or lower than the position where the ball drops onto(the finish position).
Post by: DA on January 26, 2008, 01:08:13 PM
Quote
If you don't think that a claim should be backed up with proof, then consider this: I have the answer to life, the universe, and everything, just send me a cheque for a million dollars and this knowledge can be yours!

I do think that a claim should be backed up by proof. This is exactly what omnibus has done! Unless you think that the proof itself needs to be "proven"?

Dear pyschopath,

Well, now that I have read what Omnibus has  called a "proof", I would NOT say it is "exactly" what he has done.  There are proofs and then there are "proofs".  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.

This thread is a "proof", that any thread can easily be infected by Omnibus and his SMOT theory.  Now watch Omnibus make a "comment" like he did to hoptoad in this thread not long ago.

"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."

Statements like these are common from Omnibus, which you will see as you read the threads.  They say nothing, but are just insults that serve no useful purpose.  There is a good chance he will now insult me.

You ask if anyone has used a SMOT to raise a ball.  So far I have not seen any evidence of this being done, yet I will not say that it is impossible, nor offer a "proof" that is it impossible.

Ok, Omnibus, where is my insult?
Post by: RunningBare on January 26, 2008, 01:57:57 PM
By the way, now I am really curious, has anyone managed to get the ball drop to a position level with the starting point or higher? This seems to be my current challenge...

Heres an idea for you, try it, there is nothing like practical experiments to appreciate what is happening in the real world, maths and simulations can only give you predictions, the real test is real world physics.
Post by: psychopath on January 26, 2008, 02:06:12 PM
By the way, now I am really curious, has anyone managed to get the ball drop to a position level with the starting point or higher? This seems to be my current challenge...

Heres an idea for you, try it, there is nothing like practical experiments to appreciate what is happening in the real world, maths and simulations can only give you predictions, the real test is real world physics.

I have, I can't get it to work. Like I said this is my current challenge. I just want to know if anyone else has managed it, and how.
Post by: RunningBare on January 26, 2008, 02:36:22 PM

I have, I can't get it to work. Like I said this is my current challenge. I just want to know if anyone else has managed it, and how.

Good stuff, keep trying, because in the end only you can really answer the question for yourself, omnibus can obsessively keep saying it violates CoE and we can keep disputing him over and over and over.... errr well you get the idea.

Post by: psychopath on January 26, 2008, 03:09:37 PM
Quote
because in the end only you can really answer the question for yourself

How would I know if other people have succeeded in dropping the ball on a higher position? ???

Post by: Omnibus on January 26, 2008, 03:28:53 PM
@DA,

Stop insulting me.
Post by: Omnibus on January 26, 2008, 03:44:15 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.
Post by: Omnibus on January 26, 2008, 03:47:18 PM
@psychopath,

I hope you understand that the challenge you pose is only an engineering, practical problem and doesn't concern the rigorous proof that SMOT violates CoE.
Post by: RunningBare on January 26, 2008, 03:48:19 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.
(http://www.ociw.edu/~birk/Images/ANIMATED2/stress_ani.gif)
Post by: Omnibus on January 26, 2008, 03:51:23 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.
(http://www.ociw.edu/~birk/Images/ANIMATED2/stress_ani.gif)
That applies to you. Try to learn instear of cluttering the discussions with chit-chat and nonsense.
Post by: Omnibus on January 26, 2008, 07:22:56 PM
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. 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.
Post by: DA on January 27, 2008, 02:12:49 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."

Post by: Omnibus 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.
Post by: psychopath 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.  ;D
Post by: Low-Q 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 ;)
Post by: Low-Q 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?

..................
Post by: Omnibus on January 27, 2008, 11:39:51 PM
@Low-Q,

Don't say "we". Mind your own problems and confusion.
Post by: Low-Q 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 ;)
Post by: Omnibus 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.
Post by: Low-Q 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 :)
Post by: shruggedatlas 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.
Post by: Omnibus 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.
Post by: psychopath 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
Post by: Bessler007 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
Post by: Omnibus 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?
Post by: Bessler007 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.
Post by: Omnibus 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.
Post by: psychopath on January 28, 2008, 08:46:07 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.

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
Post by: Bessler007 on January 28, 2008, 09:40:13 AM
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.
Post by: Omnibus on January 28, 2008, 09:49:13 AM
@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.
Post by: Bessler007 on January 28, 2008, 10:22:41 AM
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
Post by: Omnibus on January 28, 2008, 10:32:32 AM
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.
Post by: Bessler007 on January 28, 2008, 10:37:01 AM
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.
Post by: Omnibus on January 28, 2008, 10:39:57 AM
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.
Post by: Bessler007 on January 28, 2008, 11:15:56 AM
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
Post by: Omnibus on January 28, 2008, 11:36:38 AM
@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.
Post by: acp on January 28, 2008, 01:05:54 PM
This has to be the funniest thread in a long time  ;D
Post by: Low-Q on January 28, 2008, 02:06:42 PM
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 (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.
Post by: psychopath on January 28, 2008, 02:50:19 PM
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.

Quote
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  :o

Post by: supersam on January 28, 2008, 03:34:27 PM
omnibus,
can you substitute some real world numbers into your equation, to set our minds at ease with your, " asstonishing", revelation?

lol
sam
Post by: DA on January 28, 2008, 03:40:55 PM

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.

Post by: psychopath on January 28, 2008, 04:03:15 PM
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  :'(
Post by: tinu on January 28, 2008, 04:07:02 PM
By "big oil"?    Of course I think this is ridiculous, but ....

Nice ricochet!
I wonder if it was it from the ground and what if not.
Post by: Omnibus on January 28, 2008, 04:40:36 PM

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.
Post by: RunningBare on January 28, 2008, 04:51:46 PM
@DA, psychopath,Bessler, tinu

Today I acquire 4 powerful bar magnets, and so begins my journey into the world of smot, it does have some interesting features such as the ball dropping out of the magnetic field due to gravity.

I'm going to rigorously prove that I can power my pedalec with smot  (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/grin.gif)

On a serious note, magnets are fun to play with!
Post by: DA on January 28, 2008, 04:52:02 PM

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.

Ok, that's 20 out of 107.
Post by: hansvonlieven on January 28, 2008, 04:58:15 PM
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.

Before accusing people of ad hominem attacks you should perhaps find out what an ad hominem attack is. Don't quote Latin if you don't know what it means.

"Your argument is worthless" is NOT an ad hominem attack, "You are worthless" is.

Perhaps you are clever enough to see the difference.

Hans von Lieven
Post by: Omnibus on January 28, 2008, 05:14:34 PM
Anyone deliberately ignoring my analysis and substituting it by with outright nonsense is committing a personal attack at me. This is an insult. This should be known very well. An insult is an ad hominem attack independent of whether it is expressed through polite arrogance and passive aggression, as some here do, or is spelled out explicitly.
Post by: DA on January 28, 2008, 06:55:08 PM

Perhaps you are clever enough to see the difference.

Hans von Lieven

Then again, perhaps not.

DA
Post by: supersam on January 28, 2008, 06:56:44 PM
omnibus,

it is quite possible, that you can substitute, in matematics real numbers to us in your equtions please do so.  for example there are real numbers for the kinetic drop of the ball.  can you please post some real numbers to take out some of the variables in your equation, that you are saying demonstrates violation of coe?  if not i think the 1=2 equation sums up your mathematics quite summarily!

i have noticed, that you have ignored my suggestion to do so.  however i am confident that you will and can, since this has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.  can't wait for you to really show all of these naysayers the real numbers, not just a bunch of variables that have no real meaning to these dumbasses that can't understand your obvious algebraic proof.  do they simply not know how to do math?  or are your algebraic equations simply flawed?  only the real numbers for all of these variables will show them i am afraid.  as probably you should be when you actually look at the equations with the real numbers.

lol
sam

ps: i can hardly wait for your response.  to see who is gibbering now!
Post by: Localjoe on January 28, 2008, 07:48:19 PM
@Hans

Not many people realize how many Tenses of latin verbs their are...   Id say DA is a  parvus puella canis  but to each their own.  Was that clever or does it not count cause ive taken a few years of laitn... 5 acctually. :)
Post by: hansvonlieven on January 28, 2008, 08:11:19 PM
@ Joe,

The joys of a classical education. You can throw crap at someone and they don't even know. LOL

Hans

Sed libera nos a Omnibus.
Post by: DA on January 28, 2008, 08:20:50 PM
@ Joe,

The joys of a classical education. You can throw crap at someone and they don't even know. LOL

Hans

Hi Hans,

I think Localjoe said "small girl dog", ROFLMAO.  I enjoyed that.  I don't know Latin, I had to look it up, so that probably isn't a good translation.

Well done,

DA
Post by: hansvonlieven on January 28, 2008, 08:27:53 PM
Well, I think he meant the colloquial translation small, or "little bitch". LOL

Hans
Post by: supersam on January 28, 2008, 08:52:15 PM

@at all,

what does this have to do with the real numbers?  are you all just to scared to look at them?  what a little bunch of name callers.  at least wait on omnibus to give us some real numbers to compute with his "real formula", before righting him out as, "a stupid little bitch'!

LOL
SAM

Post by: hansvonlieven on January 28, 2008, 09:02:22 PM
@ supersam

The little bitch comment was not leveled at Omnibus, this one went to DA.

Quote
Id say DA is a  parvus puella canis  but to each their own.

Hans
Post by: supersam on January 28, 2008, 09:13:32 PM
@HANS,

oh, i see now! my mistake.  but i still have not seen any real numbers from omnibus or anyone else for that matter to backup your points one way or the other.  maybe there are several of those, what did you callums!  as far as i can see nobody wants to put the "rubber to the road", just a bunch of theoretical formulas of bs, on both sides of the coin!  so who is the bitch?!

lol
sam

ps:  SHOW ME THE REAL NUMBERS, NOT A F-ING FORMULA!
Post by: Localjoe on January 28, 2008, 09:16:21 PM
@Supersam

Although  my NON SEQUITOR comment could have been touted towards omnibus it wasn't, just a little cultural humor for the day. The real question is did romans wear sandals?
Post by: supersam on January 28, 2008, 09:24:17 PM
@LOCALJOE,

the question still remains to you or anyone else, can you start to fill in the blanks, with ral numbers?  the blanks being the variables in the equation, that is not equal in omnibus's proof of the violation of coe?  i don't think it will be to hard, just think before you comment and then you will not look like that other thing.  i dare you to actually figure out just how much force the ball has!  chicken?

lol
sam

ps: scared say scared obviously omnibus is!
Post by: Bessler007 on January 28, 2008, 09:25:14 PM
OmniBusted is a skeptic engaging in parody not too unlike the BS Lawrence leads out with.  There are many facets of the crank they object to as seen by their style.  They act as if they can't distinguish between the person and the idea.  The manner OmniBusted reiterates that ?misconception? makes it very clear it's an act.  Dude, you have jumped the shark with:

Your idle threats and directing them at anyone that disagrees with your points.

The terms you use.  When you call someone ?semi educated?, you aren't describing anyone's rejection of the ?lame proof offered for the SMOT?.  These are your honest assessments of your skeptical  opinion of anyone looking for ?free energy? and ?overunity?.
Your incessant insistence an overunity toy is really a violation of CoE.
Your algebraic proof that ignores the calculus of the dynamics of changing forces in a SMOT.  It  falls way short of the mathematics actually describing this overunity toy.
Further your lame proof overlooks the idiosyncrasies inherent in various applications of a SMOT.

In conclusions, no one could be as stupid  as OmniBusted acts.  If they were they'd need to be on life support being too stupid to know when to breath.  The parody is this skeptics portrayal of their impression of a crank's reasoning.  This skeptic is giving back to the crank their picture of the crank in this act.

It is an act.

Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ
Post by: Localjoe on January 28, 2008, 09:43:41 PM
@sam

I know better than to actually debate i this thread, You folks will go around in circles because of the mentality and lack of happy problem solving.... i just saw a friend being harassed improperly so i figured id spice it up a bit for you.  Im actually busy with my oscillator right now and dont have time to endeavor to the smot region.  This omnibus character sure seems to create a stir tho .  Weird how folks feel the need to get mad to get their point across... sadly i laugh when i see that and make i guess silly comments like calling someone a little bitch.. Take a joke and realize that i already apologized for my non sequitor/ stupid comment.  Have a great one ;D
Joe
Post by: hansvonlieven on January 28, 2008, 09:47:21 PM
@ supersam,

The way I see it, the flaw in Omnibus' "proof of violation of CoE" is not in the numbers or equations he uses but in what he uses as a starting point and an endpoint.

If you drop a brick from a ten story building and in assessing the forces at play you only look at the distance traveled between floor 9 and floor 1 you get violation of CoE. You have acceleration out of nothing. By ignoring how the brick got to the 10th floor in the first place and by ignoring how it comes to a complete halt when it hits the ground you have clear evidence of a CoE violation.

In order to find out what is really going on you must look at the complete cycle, not just a part of it.

Hans von Lieven
Post by: supersam on January 28, 2008, 10:19:33 PM
@ hans,

my point exactly,  all you have to do to omibus's equation is plug in some real numbers and it just goes away.  or at least in the real world 1 is not =2!  but in omnibus's world of mathematical faux pax, maybe it is!  OMNIBUS, LETS SEE YOUR EQUATION WITH SOME REAL NUMBERS SUBSTITUTED FOR ALL OF THE VARIABLES!

lol
sam
Post by: Omnibus on January 28, 2008, 11:13:18 PM
OmniBusted is a skeptic engaging in parody not too unlike the BS Lawrence leads out with.  There are many facets of the crank they object to as seen by their style.  They act as if they can't distinguish between the person and the idea.  The manner OmniBusted reiterates that ?misconception? makes it very clear it's an act.  Dude, you have jumped the shark with:

Your idle threats and directing them at anyone that disagrees with your points.

The terms you use.  When you call someone ?semi educated?, you aren't describing anyone's rejection of the ?lame proof offered for the SMOT?.  These are your honest assessments of your skeptical  opinion of anyone looking for ?free energy? and ?overunity?.
Your incessant insistence an overunity toy is really a violation of CoE.
Your algebraic proof that ignores the calculus of the dynamics of changing forces in a SMOT.  It  falls way short of the mathematics actually describing this overunity toy.
Further your lame proof overlooks the idiosyncrasies inherent in various applications of a SMOT.

In conclusions, no one could be as stupid  as OmniBusted acts.  If they were they'd need to be on life support being too stupid to know when to breath.  The parody is this skeptics portrayal of their impression of a crank's reasoning.  This skeptic is giving back to the crank their picture of the crank in this act.

It is an act.

Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

This is the kind of text when one is very stupid, so stupid that cannot even understand and admit that he has no arguments. Having no arguments persons such as @Bessler007 would resort to posting any nonsense just to appear they have something to say. Very, very obviously stupid approach. Anyone with half brain will see through that.
Post by: Omnibus on January 28, 2008, 11:15:01 PM
@supersam,

The quantities in my analysis are real quantities and not imaginary as you seem to think they are.
Post by: Bessler007 on January 28, 2008, 11:24:07 PM
Save it for your mother, drama queen.

Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ
Post by: hansvonlieven on January 28, 2008, 11:32:36 PM
Having no arguments persons such as @Bessler007 would resort to posting any nonsense just to appear they have something to say. Very, very obviously stupid approach. Anyone with half brain will see through that.

Someone with half a brain just did.

On the other hand, someone with a full brain would see the validity of Bessler's arguments.

Hans von Lieven
Post by: armagdn03 on January 28, 2008, 11:41:56 PM
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.

Before accusing people of ad hominem attacks you should perhaps find out what an ad hominem attack is. Don't quote Latin if you don't know what it means.

"Your argument is worthless" is NOT an ad hominem attack, "You are worthless" is.

Perhaps you are clever enough to see the difference.

Hans von Lieven

HA HA HA HA HA, now thats funny. A new  thread to watch yay! its like switching channels on cable, I think this might be the equivalent of Judge Judy, where they have four of her, and they are pitted against each other in a ring with absolutely no consequences, resulting in a fierce battle of words!!!! Hans Takes the lead with a swift interception!
Post by: Omnibus on January 28, 2008, 11:42:25 PM
@All,

The only one who fully understands my argument is @modervador. Unfortunately, he is dishonest and that prevents him from explicitly stating that he agrees with me exercising polite arrogance in "refuting" my proof.

Everyone else has gaps at various levels in understanding even elementary physics.
Post by: Omnibus on January 28, 2008, 11:44:46 PM
@armagdn03,

Don't kid yourself. Watching this thread is a complete waste of time. Unless you wanna see how a bunch of people are struggling with elementary concepts in physics.
Post by: supersam on January 28, 2008, 11:49:39 PM
@omnibus,

SHOW ME THE NUMBERS!!!!!!  WHAT COULD BE SIMPLER? especially forsomeone that has all the answers!

lol
sam
Post by: PolyMatrix on January 28, 2008, 11:52:03 PM
Details of a two ramp SMOT test at this link

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/s102jln.htm

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3382.0.html

Post by: Omnibus on January 28, 2008, 11:55:57 PM
@omnibus,

SHOW ME THE NUMBERS!!!!!!  WHAT COULD BE SIMPLER? especially forsomeone that has all the answers!

lol
sam
I've shown enough for any knowledgeable person to understand that SMOT violates CoE. Your request is by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Post by: supersam on January 29, 2008, 12:21:48 AM

omnibus,

oh is that ever so simple!!  but what else can you expect from a simple mind!  do anything but answer the question.  what a peeon!  don;'t even speculat in your equation? that ___ kg =anything. SHOW ME THE NUMBERS, THEN ATTACK MY CHARACTER!  UNTIL THEN I WILL CONTINUE TO ATTACK YOURS AS WELL AS ANY OTHER, "SO CALLED SCIENTIST" THAT CAN NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION!  have you noticed there is no longer anybody posting here but me and you.  we are waiting for your quantatative prooof!

lol
sam

Post by: Omnibus on January 29, 2008, 12:28:25 AM
@supersam,

Stop filling the thread with crap.
Post by: supersam on January 29, 2008, 12:45:35 AM
\$\$\$\$\$omnibus,

until you,SHOW ME THE NUMBERS THE ONLY ONE SPOUTING CRAP IS YOU!!!!!  your suppossed truth is nothing more than a bunch mathematical gibberish,  that on the one hand you are using to disprove and the other you are using to prove.  you are full of shi@#@\$t, until you show me the numbers.  i don't give a damn about your supposed algebraic proofs with no numbers!  they are only as good as 1=2!!!!!!

lol;
sam

Post by: PolyMatrix on January 29, 2008, 12:57:59 AM
This argument is all about where and how you start calculating the input energy and the output energy.

What IS energy? Here is one persons research on the definitions he found. http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/definition.html

Now lets concentrate on the definition of Work.http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Work/DefinitionWork.html

However it seems that the definition of work has been causing some problems. No work is done if there is no displacement. So pushing a rock that does not move means no work. Which is not that useful for thermodynamics.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3802.pdf

From the above references a picture of confusion starts to emerge. Especially when we are told that magnetic force is a conservative force except when it is varying magnetic field in Maxwell?s Fourth Field Equation. http://phy.duke.edu/courses/042/Lectures/Lecture24.pdf.

At this point I gave up trying to find out how to measure the work done by a magnetic field.
Post by: Omnibus on January 29, 2008, 12:58:45 AM
@supersam,

Know your place. You need not be shown anything because you're incompetent.Don't continue filling the thread with gibberish.
Post by: PolyMatrix on January 29, 2008, 01:32:33 AM
Interestingly I found someone else has been thinking along similar lines to Omnibus here
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm
Post by: psychopath on January 29, 2008, 02:20:44 AM
\$\$\$\$\$omnibus,

until you,SHOW ME THE NUMBERS THE ONLY ONE SPOUTING CRAP IS YOU!!!!!  your suppossed truth is nothing more than a bunch mathematical gibberish,  that on the one hand you are using to disprove and the other you are using to prove.  you are full of shi@#@\$t, until you show me the numbers.  i don't give a damn about your supposed algebraic proofs with no numbers!  they are only as good as 1=2!!!!!!

lol;
sam

I thought I already made it clear that 1 equals 2, so be quiet.
Post by: supersam on January 29, 2008, 02:31:03 AM
@dumbass,

the only thing i have done, is try and help you advance your cause by asking you to supply real numbers.  finally someone has attempted.  all beit, that was beneath you as the ass that originally suggested it.  now your claims can be opened up to scientific pier review.  if these are also your findings?  i am not claiming them, or do i make them my own, do you?  if not what do you not agree with?  if they are please state for the record!

lol
sam
Post by: RunningBare on January 29, 2008, 02:44:45 AM
@dumbass,

lol
sam

Now why would Omnibot want to prove his theory, his pleasure is gained in the argument and calling everyone incompetent.
The strange thing is that intuitively the loop can be closed, but in practice as we have seen so many times it is not possible.
Post by: Omnibus on January 29, 2008, 02:49:02 AM
@dumbass,

lol
sam

Now why would Omnibot want to prove his theory, his pleasure is gained in the argument and calling everyone incompetent.
The strange thing is that intuitively the loop can be closed, but in practice as we have seen so many times it is not possible.
Restrain from sharing your incompetent rants. The thread is cluttered as it is to deserve more stupidity splashed on it.
Post by: psychopath on January 29, 2008, 02:50:01 AM
@dumbass,

lol
sam

Now why would Omnibot want to prove his theory, his pleasure is gained in the argument and calling everyone incompetent.
The strange thing is that intuitively the loop can be closed, but in practice as we have seen so many times it is not possible.

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?
Post by: PolyMatrix on January 29, 2008, 02:52:18 AM

Post by: RunningBare on January 29, 2008, 02:58:31 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?
Post by: supersam on January 29, 2008, 03:09:46 AM
@running bear,

there in lies the real purpose.  to obfuscate the truth!  to make known that any that try are justwrong!  to let the truth die, like a grape withering on the vine!  so that obvious bs can be propgated as science, to obscure the truth. f---- the agents of real truth, let the scientists like omnibus f--- you instead, what difference does it make?  just let the professional bs'ers win.  COE is down for the count because, the professional bser, omnibus said it was, and gave no proof, except bs, and everyone bought it, but me!

yea right, omnibus, i will give you, you are a professional, but at what?  telling the truth about SMOT, i doubt it, because one thing is for certain, as much as you like to spout your algebraic calculations  around, you have never once been willing to do anything but criticise anyone that has asked you to fill in one variable of your so called equation, with one real number.  why?  because you know that the house of cards that it is built on will crumble.  so instead you say to the big bad wolf go away because you don't know what you are doing.  well let me summarize for you.  YOUR ARE THE ONE THAT CAN NOT SEE REALITY!!!!!

lol
sam
Post by: psychopath 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.

Post by: PolyMatrix 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
Post by: RunningBare 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)
Post by: Omnibus 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.
Post by: psychopath 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.
Post by: supersam 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.
Post by: psychopath 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).
Post by: psychopath 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.
Post by: Bessler007 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

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.
Post by: psychopath 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

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
Post by: Omnibus 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.
Post by: Omnibus 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.
Post by: PolyMatrix 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?

Post by: supersam 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
Post by: supersam 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?
Post by: gaby de wilde 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
Post by: tinu 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?
Post by: psychopath 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.
Post by: tinu 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?
Post by: psychopath 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.
Post by: Omnibus 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.
Post by: tinu 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
Post by: DA 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

Post by: PolyMatrix 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.
Post by: modervador 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)

Post by: modervador 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.
Post by: tinu 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
Post by: Omnibus 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.
Post by: Omnibus 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.
Post by: tinu 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
Post by: Omnibus 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.
Post by: PolyMatrix 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.
Post by: DA 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,
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
Post by: PolyMatrix on January 30, 2008, 02:29:10 AM
@DA

Thanks that last post should be a sticky.
Post by: Omnibus 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.
Post by: Bessler007 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. . . .
Post by: PolyMatrix on January 30, 2008, 03:49:27 AM
@Bessler

Proof? As @DA suggests
Post by: Bessler007 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
Post by: Omnibus on January 30, 2008, 04:22:29 AM
No, the forum isn't peer-reviewed.
Post by: PolyMatrix on January 30, 2008, 04:23:47 AM
First we have to define a peer  :D
Post by: Bessler007 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.
Post by: Omnibus 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.
Post by: Bessler007 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
Post by: Bessler007 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
Post by: Omnibus 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.
Post by: Bessler007 on January 30, 2008, 05:23:50 AM
The goofy dude here:

wrote a runaway popular science bestseller A Brief History of Time.  I think he has sold over 10,000,000 copies so far.  I'm real certain a book written around the theme of a violation of the 1st Law would outstrip his sales.  He might have made 2 or 3 dollars per copy.

I personally could bring a book to market so fast your head would spin, Omni.  We could work on a 10-90 split unless you would prefer not to be soiled by filthy lucre.  Then we could do a 50-50 split and if you like you could donate you're 1/2 to charity.

Bessler007
Post by: psychopath on January 30, 2008, 05:25:22 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

Nice "facts" that you've just established. You say "Any physicist" would become a world renown physicist in showing a violation of CoE. I disagree. Even if a physicist does discover a violation he will most likely stay quiet about it, releasing it would seriously risk his career and reputation, he will likely become a "crackpot".

"Any physicist claiming to have a proof yet refusing to publish is a liar"

You have already made the assumption that violation of CoE is completely impossible, since you are saying an actual proof is not possible.

You are clearly implying that a violation of CoE is absolutely impossible.  :o

Stop treating mainstream science as a religion.
Post by: PolyMatrix on January 30, 2008, 05:27:12 AM
Mathematics is derived from Phyicis or from the real world. Pure Maths basically contemplates theoretical posibilities.

Post by: Bessler007 on January 30, 2008, 05:32:09 AM
any point you want to make, make it, but don't give me reading assignments.  I have things to do.

Bessler007

Things are much more complicated than you present them. You should speak, for instance, with @Demosthenes fro Steorn forum to learn more.
Post by: psychopath on January 30, 2008, 05:36:08 AM
I have things to do.

For the past two days you've consistently been trying to debunk the smot, without any evidence whatsoever(other than witty posts with pictures of disabled people).
Post by: Bessler007 on January 30, 2008, 06:15:41 AM
I see I've made my point.  There should come a time in everyone's life when they face very hard decisions.  I don't deny those decisions exist.  It's next to impossible to make the right choice if you're gazing back to Egypt.  If you expect to make the right choice you need to focus on what should be rather than what was.

They say you shouldn't bet the farm.  Hell, I'll burn the mother down if I think it's the right thing to do.

Bessler007

edit:  anyone that would like to claim more than the inventor of the SIMPLE MAGNET OVER UNITY TOY is attempting to debunk the originator's claim.  The burden of proof is on them.
Post by: psychopath on January 30, 2008, 07:01:54 AM
@Bessler,

I see that you are ignoring my earlier replies to your posts, you also don't seem to know what "over unity" means.

You are mistaken, the burden of proof is on you, because if you look carefully I haven't claimed anything. However, you have made countless claims, such as the impossibility of violation of CoE, and your holy "facts".

Look carefully, I have neither said that the smot is definitely provides free energy, nor did I say a looped smot was possible. The only point that I've made is that you cannot say a violation of CoE is impossible without proof. Of course I'm not saying that just because you have no proof that a smot is a free energy machine, I'm saying that such claims require proof.

So the burden of proof is not on me, it is on you
Post by: PolyMatrix on January 30, 2008, 07:03:13 AM
Talking of 'Any' physicist and proof we only need to look at the example of the announcement of 'Cold Fusion' reference: http://peswiki.com/energy/PowerPedia:Cold_fusion and what happened historically there.
Post by: psychopath on January 30, 2008, 07:18:05 AM
Talking of 'Any' physicist and proof we only need to look at the example of the announcement of 'Cold Fusion' reference: http://peswiki.com/energy/PowerPedia: Cold_fusion and what happened historically there.

Great find  8). That article is a perfect example of what I meant.
Post by: Bessler007 on January 30, 2008, 07:34:23 AM
Hello Poly,

I don't mind addressing your comment.  Here is something you should realize.  The geeks that examine the world have quite a bit of fiscal clout.  In addition to that individual clout, they network with an incredible power.  Also, if you assess your personal ability to investigate, you have to admit it's no where near the ability of someone with a job at the jet propulsion lab or Cal Tech or MIT or any other research facility around the world.

Now I know for a fact people at those facilities bleed just like you do.  A very big difference is they have access to resources you most likely don't; not the lest of these being personal capital.  Now if there were anything to cold fusion don't you suppose these geeks would have capitalized on it?

Since I know some of those geeks I'd suggest they would.

Bessler007

[/quote]
Talking of 'Any' physicist and proof we only need to look at the example of the announcement of 'Cold Fusion' reference: http://peswiki.com/energy/PowerPedia: Cold_fusion and what happened historically there.
Post by: Omnibus on January 30, 2008, 07:36:27 AM
Hello Poly,

I don't mind addressing your comment.  Here is something you should realize.  The geeks that examine the world have quite a bit of fiscal clout.  In addition to that individual clout, they network with an incredible power.  Also, if you assess your personal ability to investigate, you have to admit it's no where near the ability of someone with a job at the jet propulsion lab or Cal Tech or MIT or any other research facility around the world.

Now I know for a fact people at those facilities bleed just like you do.  A very big difference is they have access to resources you most likely don't; not the lest of these being personal capital.  Now if there were anything to cold fusion don't you suppose these geeks would have capitalized on it?

Since I know some of those geeks I'd suggest they would.

Bessler007

Quote
Talking of 'Any' physicist and proof we only need to look at the example of the announcement of 'Cold Fusion' reference: http://peswiki.com/energy/PowerPedia: Cold_fusion and what happened historically there.
Again, you're expressing a very naive view regarding the real situation in science.
Post by: PolyMatrix on January 30, 2008, 07:53:08 AM
@Bessler007

I just thought that it was common background noise to any discussion that prejudice and money affect the development of technology. Tessla v Westinghouse. Transputer v 8086 v 68000 microchips, VHS v Betamax, the technological best does not always win what is sold to the market.
Post by: Bessler007 on January 30, 2008, 07:57:53 AM
Hello Omni,

I do understand.  My understanding isn't naive.  Just like anyone else I have to pay to be here.  There really aren't any exceptions to that fact.

I am willing to bless you if you're willing.

PM me.

Bessler007
Post by: PolyMatrix on January 30, 2008, 08:16:08 AM
@Bessler007

Not that you are going to bother looking at the link but here is the news from January 2008 conference on Cold Fusion

http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm
Post by: psychopath on January 30, 2008, 08:26:59 AM
Hello Poly,

I don't mind addressing your comment.  Here is something you should realize.  The geeks that examine the world have quite a bit of fiscal clout.  In addition to that individual clout, they network with an incredible power.  Also, if you assess your personal ability to investigate, you have to admit it's no where near the ability of someone with a job at the jet propulsion lab or Cal Tech or MIT or any other research facility around the world.

Now I know for a fact people at those facilities bleed just like you do.  A very big difference is they have access to resources you most likely don't; not the lest of these being personal capital.  Now if there were anything to cold fusion don't you suppose these geeks would have capitalized on it?

Since I know some of those geeks I'd suggest they would.

Bessler007

I find it amusing to read that you've been "in search of the supernatural mechanics that might cause perpetual motion for about 4 years" and then to read your posts here. If you are so convinced that mainstream science is so perfect, what are you doing here?

Quote
you have to admit it's no where near the ability of someone with a job at the jet propulsion lab or Cal Tech or MIT or any other research facility around the world.

These people don't research free energy, if they did, perhaps they might find it.
Post by: Bessler007 on January 31, 2008, 04:17:06 AM
Briefly the supernatural is above or beyond the present understanding of nature.  Since the answer from physicists is perpetual motion is impossible, any solution would be beyond or above that present scientific understanding or SUPER*natural.

I did look at your link, Poly, but I don't think you got my point.  People can complain they can't get funding for an energy idea blaming any sort of boogie man they invent.  Then there's BlackLight Power, Inc. founded by Dr. Randell Mills.   He has raised over \$50,000,000 to fund his R&D.  He has very impressive credentials and a patent described here:

Quote
When is the ground state of a hydrogen atom not the ground state? When it is a "hydrino" state, according to Randy Mills and co-workers at BlackLight Power, a company based in Cranbury, New Jersey. In a series of papers Mills and co-workers have argued that the results of a variety of experiments on hydrogen plasmas can only be explained by the existence of a new state in which the electron has less energy than the n=1 ground state.

Regardless of what academia thinks capitalists fund ideas that are commercially viable.  The cold fusion community has a lot of interest and work is on going to produce something as we chat.   As far as I can see it isn't commercially viable.  If anyone could prove it were to a capitalist things would change in that world the same way Dr. Mills has changed his.

Complain or produce.

If there is a sound proof the SMOT is beyond overunity and is indeed a perpetual motion device (violates CoE) that proof could be published anonymously at Peswiki.  If you fear for your professional reputation Omni, that is an avenue.

I think you're coping out.

In case the point was missed I'll restate it:

Capitalists will fund ideas they're sold on.  No one has made a good case to people like Neil Moskowitz, chief financial officer of Credit Suisse First Boston or Michael H. Jordon, chief executive of EDS for cold fusion as Dr. Mills has.  (source:  Wall Street Journal)  The key point is academia doesn't run the world.

Bessler007

Edit:
BlackLight Power, Inc.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/index.shtml
Post by: psychopath on January 31, 2008, 05:16:31 AM
Quote
Capitalists will fund ideas they're sold on.  No one has made a good case to people like Neil Moskowitz, chief financial officer of Credit Suisse First Boston or Michael H. Jordon, chief executive of EDS for cold fusion as Dr. Mills has.  (source:  Wall Street Journal)  The key point is academia doesn't run the world.

That does nothing to show that violation of CoE is impossible.

You must understand that for hundreds of years there were people discussing man made flight, and countless people threw themselves of buildings in search of it.

Just like the wiki site, and this one, there have always been nutty people trying to do the "impossible". History shows that there have been lots of "crackpots" who have turned out to be right, and many "impossible" things have been shown to be real.

Every time you say something like "If it was possible it would have been all over the media" or "If it was real I would have heard of it" it is the same as the "impossible" man made flight situation. The wright brothers didn't test their craft in secret you know.

Quote
Briefly the supernatural is above or beyond the present understanding of nature.  Since the answer from physicists is perpetual motion is impossible, any solution would be beyond or above that present scientific understanding or SUPER*natural.

I didn't imply any other definition, I meant that it is funny to see that you have been trying to achieve perpetual motion for 4 years yet you are somehow completely convinced that CoE is absolute.
Post by: Bessler007 on January 31, 2008, 05:33:45 AM
You read what you want to see.  My point is this:

The Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy is (1) a toy without much benefit of overunity and (2) not a proof of a violation of the 1st Law.

The idea that things once thought impossible that presently work isn't a case for any impossibility you care to cite.  In other words just because some crackpots were finally vindicated is no reason to think every crackpot should or will be.  Further in other words no crackpot was ever vindicated without some sound proof or reason to think otherwise.

Every time you fail to specifically quote something I've said and deal with an exact objection as opposed to the vague generalizations you often fall into I'll ignore you.

Bessler007
Post by: Omnibus on January 31, 2008, 06:03:35 AM
You read what you want to see.  My point is this:

The Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy is (1) a toy without much benefit of overunity and (2) not a proof of a violation of the 1st Law.

The idea that things once thought impossible that presently work isn't a case for any impossibility you care to cite.  In other words just because some crackpots were finally vindicated is no reason to think every crackpot should or will be.  Further in other words no crackpot was ever vindicated without some sound proof or reason to think otherwise.

Every time you fail to specifically quote something I've said and deal with an exact objection as opposed to the vague generalizations you often fall into I'll ignore you.

Bessler007
The prudent thing to do is to remain silent on these matters because you have no clue either regarding Randy Mills or the violation of what you call "1st Law".
Post by: PolyMatrix on January 31, 2008, 06:43:41 AM
Here is an interesting paper on the tapping of Zero Point Energy.
http://www.innoventek.com/BassReZPET020406.pdf

The counter view to the funding side of things is the example of Tesla and Westinghouse. Westinghouse withdrew funding because what Tesla was making would not make him money.
Post by: psychopath on January 31, 2008, 07:06:11 AM
You read what you want to see.  My point is this:

The Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy is (1) a toy without much benefit of overunity and (2) not a proof of a violation of the 1st Law.

The idea that things once thought impossible that presently work isn't a case for any impossibility you care to cite.  In other words just because some crackpots were finally vindicated is no reason to think every crackpot should or will be.  Further in other words no crackpot was ever vindicated without some sound proof or reason to think otherwise.

Every time you fail to specifically quote something I've said and deal with an exact objection as opposed to the vague generalizations you often fall into I'll ignore you.

Bessler007

Every time I quoted you, I copy pasted your words and wrapped it up in quotation marks.

Your "fact" said that if anyone finds proof for violation of CoE that they must be a liar. This is clearly implying that CoE is absolute, and you didn't object to that.

Quote
The Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy is (1) a toy without much benefit of overunity and (2) not a proof of a violation of the 1st Law.

I never said it was, but I said that just because it isn't of much benefit, doesn't mean it isn't over unity. Like omnibus said, you don't need a working free perpetual motion machine to violate CoE!

You seem to misunderstand the point I am making. I have never said and never will say that the smot provides free energy until I am absolutely convinced that it is, with heaps of proof.

What I HAVE been saying is that you cannot totally dismiss the smot, simply because many people have failed or simply because you have absolute faith in mainstream science.
Post by: psychopath on January 31, 2008, 07:10:42 AM
Here is an interesting paper on the tapping of Zero Point Energy.
http://www.innoventek.com/BassReZPET020406.pdf

The counter view to the funding side of things is the example of Tesla and Westinghouse. Westinghouse withdrew funding because what Tesla was making would not make him money.

Exactly, people only fund things if there is money involved!
Post by: hansvonlieven on January 31, 2008, 08:41:11 AM
I didn't imply any other definition, I meant that it is funny to see that you have been trying to achieve perpetual motion for 4 years yet you are somehow completely convinced that CoE is absolute.

The impossibility of a CoE violation and the idea of a functioning perpetuum mobile are not mutually exclusive. Even with today's knowledge the co-existence of both is quite possible, if not probable.

All CoE says is that you cannot create or destroy energy. The idea is very old. The first recorded instance is from Parmenides (510-450 BC).

The popular Latin version of his famous statement is: Ex nihilo nihil fit. (Out of nothing comes nothing) This is CoE in a nutshell.

Quite simply put, since a something cannot come from a nothing, a something cannot turn into a nothing. A something therefore can never disappear though it can and does change form. That is all CoE says.

In other words, the totality of all matter and energy in the universe is continually re-cycled.

All we have to do is to hook a machine into this cycle and we will have perpetual motion.

We have not learned how to do this.

Hans von Lieven
Post by: Omnibus on January 31, 2008, 10:10:26 AM
I didn't imply any other definition, I meant that it is funny to see that you have been trying to achieve perpetual motion for 4 years yet you are somehow completely convinced that CoE is absolute.

The impossibility of a CoE violation and the idea of a functioning perpetuum mobile are not mutually exclusive. Even with today's knowledge the co-existence of both is quite possible, if not probable.

All CoE says is that you cannot create or destroy energy. The idea is very old. The first recorded instance is from Parmenides (510-450 BC).

The popular Latin version of his famous statement is: Ex nihilo nihil fit. (Out of nothing comes nothing) This is CoE in a nutshell.

Quite simply put, since a something cannot come from a nothing, a something cannot turn into a nothing. A something therefore can never disappear though it can and does change form. That is all CoE says.

In other words, the totality of all matter and energy in the universe is continually re-cycled.

All we have to do is to hook a machine into this cycle and we will have perpetual motion.

We have not learned how to do this.

Hans von Lieven
Absolutely not. The impossibility of a CoE violation and the idea of a functioning perpetuum mobile are mutually exclusive although, as explained many times, existence of a working perpetuum mobile is not a condition for the violation of CoE. CoE may be violated without ever having a perpetuum mobile in existence. The opposite isn?t possible, however. In other words, CoE must be violated for a perpetuum mobile to exist. Energy from nothing must be produced for a perpetuum mobile to exist. A machine tapping existing energy from any source isn?t perpetuum mobile.

Therefore, the really important achievement is to ensure conditions for overunity, not so much for obtaining of free energy. Producing energy from nothing (overunity) is the substantial goal in the endeavors under discussion here. Obtaining free energy (other than energy out of nothing), although quite tempting in a practical sense, is foreseeable and in many ways trivial since it concerns tapping into already existing energy sources.

What is really interesting is that it has already been proven that CoE can be violated (by producing energy out of nothing (excess energy)). As explained many times, the only necessary and sufficient criterion for CoE to be obeyed is to have the same amount of energy out than in, in a closed loop, and nothing else. SMOT, however, does not obey this criterion because if it did then the only energy that stands to be transformed back into other energies upon closing the loop is the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted to it. Thus, if CoE were to be obeyed in SMOT the absolute value of energy in |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| imparted to raise the ball from A to B will exactly equal the absolute value of the energy out |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| to move the ball back at A and thus close the loop. This isn?t the case in SMOT, however. In SMOT the absolute value of energy in |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| imparted to the ball differs from the absolute value of the energy |(mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc)| the ball stands to convert in other energies upon its return back at A, thus closing the loop. This difference in the energy in and energy out in SMOT is in clear violation of CoE.

Again, the said violation of CoE leading to the production of excess energy has nothing to do with whether or not that excess energy can be utilized for practical purposes, especially whether or not a functioning perpetuum mobile can be constructed. Constructing of a perpetuum mobile is a separate, purely engineering, applied problem which may or may not be solved but that will not affect the rigorous proof that CoE can be violated.
Post by: tinu on January 31, 2008, 10:21:25 AM
The smot debate was settling down anyway...

Lol! I wish it was!
Post by: Bessler007 on January 31, 2008, 11:28:57 AM
You read what you want to see.  My point is this:

The Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy is (1) a toy without much benefit of overunity and (2) not a proof of a violation of the 1st Law.

The idea that things once thought impossible that presently work isn't a case for any impossibility you care to cite.  In other words just because some crackpots were finally vindicated is no reason to think every crackpot should or will be.  Further in other words no crackpot was ever vindicated without some sound proof or reason to think otherwise.

Every time you fail to specifically quote something I've said and deal with an exact objection as opposed to the vague generalizations you often fall into I'll ignore you.

Bessler007

Every time I quoted you, I copy pasted your words and wrapped it up in quotation marks.

Your "fact" said that if anyone finds proof for violation of CoE that they must be a liar. This is clearly implying that CoE is absolute, and you didn't object to that.

Quote
The Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy is (1) a toy without much benefit of overunity and (2) not a proof of a violation of the 1st Law.

I never said it was, but I said that just because it isn't of much benefit, doesn't mean it isn't over unity. Like omnibus said, you don't need a working free perpetual motion machine to violate CoE!

You seem to misunderstand the point I am making. I have never said and never will say that the smot provides free energy until I am absolutely convinced that it is, with heaps of proof.

What I HAVE been saying is that you cannot totally dismiss the smot, simply because many people have failed or simply because you have absolute faith in mainstream science.

Quote
Capitalists will fund ideas they're sold on.  No one has made a good case to people like Neil Moskowitz, chief financial officer of Credit Suisse First Boston or Michael H. Jordon, chief executive of EDS for cold fusion as Dr. Mills has.  (source:  Wall Street Journal)  The key point is academia doesn't run the world.

That does nothing to show that violation of CoE is impossible.

You must understand that for hundreds of years there were people discussing man made flight, and countless people threw themselves of buildings in search of it.

Just like the wiki site, and this one, there have always been nutty people trying to do the "impossible". History shows that there have been lots of "crackpots" who have turned out to be right, and many "impossible" things have been shown to be real.

Every time you say something like "If it was possible it would have been all over the media" or "If it was real I would have heard of it" it is the same as the "impossible" man made flight situation. The wright brothers didn't test their craft in secret you know.

Quote
Briefly the supernatural is above or beyond the present understanding of nature.  Since the answer from physicists is perpetual motion is impossible, any solution would be beyond or above that present scientific understanding or SUPER*natural.

I didn't imply any other definition, I meant that it is funny to see that you have been trying to achieve perpetual motion for 4 years yet you are somehow completely convinced that CoE is absolute.

In addition to you attributing conclusions to me, I never made this statement you attribute to me.  Your points are so riddled with fallacy of a similar nature it's not worth dealing with.

Bessler007
Post by: Bessler007 on January 31, 2008, 11:40:17 AM
Omni, you can attempt to change the subject to what people know or don't yet it's clear you don't have a proof the SMOT violates CoE.  You don't seem to know the difference between overunity and a violation of CoE.

It would be prudent for you to take an early retirement before your employer realizes just how incompetent you are.

Bessler007

. . .
Therefore, the really important achievement is to ensure conditions for overunity, not so much for obtaining of free energy. Producing energy from nothing (overunity) is the substantial goal in the endeavors under discussion here. Obtaining free energy (other than energy out of nothing), although quite tempting in a practical sense, is foreseeable and in many ways trivial since it concerns tapping into already existing energy sources.
. . .
Post by: Bessler007 on January 31, 2008, 12:00:08 PM
Free energy is "foreseeable"??  Good Lord.

Bessler007
Post by: psychopath on January 31, 2008, 12:47:41 PM
@Bessler,

I said like,

I said
Every time you say something like "If it was possible it would have been all over the media"

Not "Every time you say "If it was possible it would have been all over the media""

If you cannot understand this, I will simply give up.

I also said "Every time I quoted you, I copy pasted your words and wrapped it up in quotation marks"

not "Anything wrapped up in quotation marks are quotes of you"

Post by: hansvonlieven on January 31, 2008, 03:18:14 PM
Omnibus,

Have you ever thought how idiotic your idea of "Energy from Nothing" really is?

Logic dictates that if you can extract something from a nothing it was not a nothing to begin with.. But then you were never logical, were you?

Hans von Lieven
Post by: bw on January 31, 2008, 04:35:02 PM
someone who doubts free energy should pull the plug on a sink or tub of water and observe the vortex, then study the vortex.  did you know you can buy a small vortex gun that will completely seperate all hot air from all cold air and discharge the hot air from one end and all the cold air from the other?  these are driven only with compressed air 80-120 psi.  you can buy one of these to play with for about \$130. u.s.   also more than one company has a vortex that crushes rocks or grinds corn, or smashes anything dropped into it.  this machine is driven by a fairly small electric motor.  rocks come out as dust.  by the way, it is also overunity.
consider the possabilities and continue working.  everything wants to spin, every planet, wind current, bath water, cube magnet currents, tpu's, satelites, everything.  don't force it,  encourage the spin.  treat the spin like a child swinging, a gentle nudge at the proper time and direction, let natural forces do the real work for you.  if you can't figure it out don't knock the ones who are in that process.  many have good reason to delay this and i can't really blame them but for the good of the planet we have to share, this must continue.

bw
Post by: hansvonlieven on January 31, 2008, 04:59:21 PM
@ bw,

Good points you make.

Did you know that Helmholtz wrote a book called "?ber Wirbelbewegungen (1858)" (about vortex movement) which is the foundation of hydrodynamics and modern vortex theories. Unfortunately I have only found the German original, though translations must exist. I haven't found one yet as I don't know the English title.

Incidentally, Victor Schauberger's work is based on Helmholtz.

It is also of interest to note here that the same Helmholtz formulated CoE.

Hans von Lieven
Post by: tak22 on January 31, 2008, 06:21:01 PM
@Hans

Hermann von HelmholtzÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s paper Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ueber Integrale der hydrodynamischen Gleichungen, welche den Wirbelbewegungen entsprechenÃ¢â‚¬Â, translated by P. G. Tait and published in English under the title Ã¢â‚¬Å“On Integrals of the Hydrodynamical Equations, which Express Vortex-motionÃ¢â‚¬Â in Philosophical Magazine, vol. 33, pp.485-512 (1867).

tak
Post by: hansvonlieven on January 31, 2008, 06:23:50 PM
Thanks Tak,

Good info!  ;D

Hans
Post by: Omnibus on January 31, 2008, 06:24:16 PM
Omni, you can attempt to change the subject to what people know or don't yet it's clear you don't have a proof the SMOT violates CoE.  You don't seem to know the difference between overunity and a violation of CoE.

It would be prudent for you to take an early retirement before your employer realizes just how incompetent you are.

Bessler007

. . .
Therefore, the really important achievement is to ensure conditions for overunity, not so much for obtaining of free energy. Producing energy from nothing (overunity) is the substantial goal in the endeavors under discussion here. Obtaining free energy (other than energy out of nothing), although quite tempting in a practical sense, is foreseeable and in many ways trivial since it concerns tapping into already existing energy sources.
. . .
Like I said, it would be prudent not to express opinions on matters such as violation of CoE you don't understand.
Post by: Omnibus on January 31, 2008, 06:26:23 PM
Omnibus,

Have you ever thought how idiotic your idea of "Energy from Nothing" really is?

Logic dictates that if you can extract something from a nothing it was not a nothing to begin with.. But then you were never logical, were you?

Hans von Lieven
With this you're only showing your limited understanding of what energy really is.
Post by: utilitarian on January 31, 2008, 07:34:31 PM
I have been trying to follow this, and I sort of see where Omnibus is going, but when I try to get my head around it, it starts to hurt.  Low-Q's explanations make more sense.  But I think I can sum this up:

1.  You will never convince Omnibus he is wrong.  Do not even try.  There is no mathematics or physics argument or physical demonstration that can disprove his theory to his satisfaction.

2.  Omnibus is correct when he says that technically, no physical demonstration of usable excess energy from a SMOT is necessary for him to be correct.

3.  Omnibus ignores the related corollary that while (2) is technically true, without a working demo of a SMOT that allows one to actually withdraw energy (instead of putting it in, via hand), it is impossible to convince anyone else of his point of view, given how revolutionary and counterintuitive it is.

4.  A demo of a SMOT that does not produce usable excess energy is not proof that there cannot be a SMOT that does produce usable excess energy.  The old adage about proving a negative applies here.

5.  Because it is currently impossible to draw energy from a self-sustaining SMOT, the debate will never end so long as Omnibus continues with his view.  (Omnibus's generous use of passive voice in claiming violation of CoE "has been proven beyond all doubt" serves to add fuel to the fire.  It does almost beg for a raised hand up from the "remaining" doubters.)

Post by: Omnibus on January 31, 2008, 07:44:18 PM
I have been trying to follow this, and I sort of see where Omnibus is going, but when I try to get my head around it, it starts to hurt.  Low-Q's explanations make more sense.  But I think I can sum this up:

1.  You will never convince Omnibus he is wrong.  Do not even try.  There is no mathematics or physics argument or physical demonstration that can disprove his theory to his satisfaction.

2.  Omnibus is correct when he says that technically, no physical demonstration of usable excess energy from a SMOT is necessary for him to be correct.

3.  Omnibus ignores the related corollary that while (2) is technically true, without a working demo of a SMOT that allows one to actually withdraw energy (instead of putting it in, via hand), it is impossible to convince anyone else of his point of view, given how revolutionary and counterintuitive it is.

4.  A demo of a SMOT that does not produce usable excess energy is not proof that there cannot be a SMOT that does produce usable excess energy.  The old adage about proving a negative applies here.

5.  Because it is currently impossible to draw energy from a self-sustaining SMOT, the debate will never end so long as Omnibus continues with his view.

All this is untrue. Also, to join the choir of other incompetent amateurs here isn't something one can be proud of.
Post by: utilitarian on January 31, 2008, 07:46:08 PM
All this is untrue. Also, to join the choir of other incompetent amateurs here isn't something one can be proud of.

I am not proud, but come on, at least 2 and 4 you cannot argue with.
Post by: hansvonlieven on January 31, 2008, 07:49:24 PM
Even if someone does build a self sustaining closed system SMOT this is still no proof that CoE has been violated. The most someone could say is that there is an energy input from an unknown source.

Until we know ALL forms of energy that exist in the universe no violation of CoE can be proven.

We are a long way from recognising and measuring all forms of energy that exist. There are still any number of things out there in this immensity that surrounds us that we have no knowledge of.

Hans von Lieven
Post by: Omnibus on January 31, 2008, 08:00:41 PM
On another note, it should be well understood that violation of CoE is not about extracting of energy a someone here wants to present it, trying to invoke also logic, if you can believe it. Just the opposite, violation of CoE is exactly not about extracting energy but is about appearance of energy out of nothing, out of no source. SMOT is the easiest way to understand that. One can see there that a particular ,favorable superposition of two conservative fields makes it so that the forces of these fields can move a mass through a distance in such a way so that the net outcome is gain of energy (more energy out than in). The basis for understanding this is to make a distinction between force and energy, a distinction many here just don't realize exists.

A deeper understanding of what energy is goes beyond the usual definition of energy based only on the 'transformation' part of CoE, that is, beyond the definition that 'energy is the ability to do work'. That definition relies only on the previous availability of some finite quantity that would transform into another quantity--that's the 'transformation' part of CoE and it isn't violated, by SMOT including. A deeper understanding of what energy is includes the realization that energy is the very expression of motion and that motion is achieved through the action of force which isn't energy. Thus, when saying 'obtaining energy out of nothing' doesn't mean that there hasn't been force. On the contrary, especially due to the existence of force, more specifically, especially due to the existence of particular superposition of force fields one create motion whose expression is through energy, at that energy coming out of no source.
Post by: Omnibus on January 31, 2008, 08:02:39 PM
All this is untrue. Also, to join the choir of other incompetent amateurs here isn't something one can be proud of.

I am not proud, but come on, at least 2 and 4 you cannot argue with.
No, you're wrong on that too. Technical demonstration has been presented and usability isn't a criterion for whether or not CoE is violated.
Post by: Omnibus on January 31, 2008, 08:05:45 PM
Even if someone does build a self sustaining closed system SMOT this is still no proof that CoE has been violated. The most someone could say is that there is an energy input from an unknown source.

Until we know ALL forms of energy that exist in the universe no violation of CoE can be proven.

We are a long way from recognising and measuring all forms of energy that exist. There are still any number of things out there in this immensity that surrounds us that we have no knowledge of.

Hans von Lieven
No, if a device taps energy from an existing source that device isn't a perpetuum mobile. One may think it is but once the energy source is identified the device cannot be pronounced any more as perpetuum mobile. Violation of CoE, the basis for perpetuum mobile, requires no energy source whatsoever.
Post by: hansvonlieven on January 31, 2008, 08:25:47 PM
Violation of CoE, the basis for perpetuum mobile, requires no energy source whatsoever.

Do you ever listen to yourself?

Probably not, or you would not be uttering such complete nonsense.

Hans von Lieven
Post by: Omnibus on January 31, 2008, 08:45:08 PM
Violation of CoE, the basis for perpetuum mobile, requires no energy source whatsoever.

Do you ever listen to yourself?

Probably not, or you would not be uttering such complete nonsense.

Hans von Lieven
No, you're the one uttering complete nonsense by connecting violation CoE with a source which the device has to tap energy from. Hear it loud and clear, there mustn't be any existing energy source driving the device to claim that device is violating CoE. The energy driving the device must come out of no source. You are confused about the nature of violation of CoE and need to read more carefully and try to understand the references you cite (Helmholtz).
Post by: Bessler007 on January 31, 2008, 09:15:12 PM
If you were 1,000 years old you would still be wise beyond your years.

If I had to deal with Omni at a personal level it would be me, him, security and a cardboard box.  I'd just smile and agree with everything as I helped him clean out his desk.

Bessler007

I have been trying to follow this, and I sort of see where Omnibus is going, but when I try to get my head around it, it starts to hurt.  Low-Q's explanations make more sense.  But I think I can sum this up:

1.  You will never convince Omnibus he is wrong.  Do not even try.

. . .
Post by: hansvonlieven on January 31, 2008, 09:15:53 PM

there mustn't be any existing energy source driving the device to claim that device is violating CoE. The energy driving the device must come out of no source.

Precisely, and THAT cannot be done!

Ex nihilo nihil fit. Quod erat demonstrandum!
Post by: Omnibus on January 31, 2008, 09:21:19 PM

there mustn't be any existing energy source driving the device to claim that device is violating CoE. The energy driving the device must come out of no source.

Precisely, and THAT cannot be done!

Ex nihilo nihil fit. Quod erat demonstrandum!
On the contrary, that's the requirement Helmholtz puts for CoE to be violated and precisely that can be done, as demonstrated by SMOT. You have to learn more so that one day somehow you could understand that Latin sentences don't qualify as arguments in physics.
Post by: hansvonlieven on January 31, 2008, 09:35:58 PM
But they do, seeing that they express the fundamentals of physics and CoE

out of nothing comes nothing is the most fundamental axiom of physics, everything else follows from there. It is also the most fundamental axiom in mathematics.

Hans von Lieven
Post by: Omnibus on January 31, 2008, 10:10:58 PM
But they do, seeing that they express the fundamentals of physics and CoE

out of nothing comes nothing is the most fundamental axiom of physics, everything else follows from there. It is also the most fundamental axiom in mathematics.

Hans von Lieven
No, they don't. It's a wishful thinking to perceive that physical phenomena will go away by the spell of uttering Latin phrases. Now we know that fundamentals of physics reject CoE as a general principle and that's not proven by muttering Latin spell but is proven by experiment. As I explained, energy is the expression of motion and motion comes as a result of proper superposition of force fields. Therefore, the simplistic understanding that 'out of nothing comes nothing' isn't applicable here because forces aren't 'nothing', motion isn't 'nothing', the only 'nothing' is a pre-existing source of energy. Turns out conditions can be found whereby despite the lack of pre-existing energy source, only due to properly superimposed, assisting each other fields, motion of a body at a certain distance can be achieved, that is, work can be done without expenditure of energy of any kind which is equivalent to energy out of nothing (out of no source).
Post by: FreeEnergy on January 31, 2008, 10:26:42 PM
"something must come from something; for nothing comes from nothing and nothing is the result"
- Ernest Shurtleff Holmes

;)

Post by: Omnibus on January 31, 2008, 10:31:31 PM
"something must come from something; for nothing comes from nothing and nothing is the result"
- Ernest Shurtleff Holmes
;)

That's somebody's opinion. So what? People write of elves and leprechauns. This doesn't mean we should quote them as evidence in physics.
Post by: hansvonlieven on January 31, 2008, 10:33:44 PM

That's somebody's opinion. So what? People write of elves and leprechauns. This doesn't mean we should quote them as evidence in physics.

And Omnibus writes of Smots and CoE violations. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Hans von Lieven
Post by: FreeEnergy on January 31, 2008, 10:41:27 PM

;)
Post by: Omnibus on January 31, 2008, 10:41:28 PM

That's somebody's opinion. So what? People write of elves and leprechauns. This doesn't mean we should quote them as evidence in physics.

And Omnibus writes of Smots and CoE violations. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Hans von Lieven
Wrong. Wishful thinking again. I write of SMOT violating CoE because I have arguments physics recognizes as legitimate. You are missing the fact that some people don't represent elves and leprechauns as physical argument, neither rely on Latin spells to make physical facts go away, and I belong to that group of people, as evident even in this thread.
Post by: tinu on January 31, 2008, 10:47:06 PM
"something must come from something; for nothing comes from nothing and nothing is the result"
- Ernest Shurtleff Holmes

;)

I really don?t know anymore?
Sometime money can come from nothing. Fortunately some discover that later it cost time to do.
Also, many other things can come from nothing with a good hidden agenda, right?
Post by: DA on January 31, 2008, 10:51:20 PM
Even if someone does build a self sustaining closed system SMOT this is still no proof that CoE has been violated. The most someone could say is that there is an energy input from an unknown source.

Until we know ALL forms of energy that exist in the universe no violation of CoE can be proven.

We are a long way from recognising and measuring all forms of energy that exist. There are still any number of things out there in this immensity that surrounds us that we have no knowledge of.

Hans von Lieven

Well said, Hans,

Nice to see people like you around who can express themselves clearly.

DA
Post by: Omnibus on January 31, 2008, 10:59:57 PM
Even if someone does build a self sustaining closed system SMOT this is still no proof that CoE has been violated. The most someone could say is that there is an energy input from an unknown source.

Until we know ALL forms of energy that exist in the universe no violation of CoE can be proven.

We are a long way from recognising and measuring all forms of energy that exist. There are still any number of things out there in this immensity that surrounds us that we have no knowledge of.

Hans von Lieven

Well said, Hans,

Nice to see people like you around who can express themselves clearly.

DA
What is nice and clear about someone expressing a wrong idea? You're joking, right? A device powered by an existing energy source can never be perpetuum mobile and that's what perpetuum mobile is by definition even in the works of the classics such as Helmholtz.
Post by: FreeEnergy on January 31, 2008, 11:07:48 PM
"something must come from something; for nothing comes from nothing and nothing is the result"
- Ernest Shurtleff Holmes

;)

I really don?t know anymore?
Sometime money can come from nothing. Fortunately some discover that later it cost time to do.
Also, many other things can come from nothing with a good hidden agenda, right?

depends what you think "nothing" is.
Post by: hansvonlieven on January 31, 2008, 11:14:38 PM

depends what you think "nothing" is.

According to Omnibus: A nothing is a something you can pull energy from.

How is that for an oxymoron?

Hans von Lieven
Post by: Omnibus on January 31, 2008, 11:19:35 PM

depends what you think "nothing" is.

According to Omnibus: A nothing is a something you can pull energy from.

How is that for an oxymoron?

Hans von Lieven
No, don't put words in my mouth. This is your interpretation because you think that there must always be a pre-existing energy source to pull energy from. You are about pulling energy from, not me. I've explained that when CoE is violated energy isn't pulled from anywhere but appears out of nothing, there;s no source to pull it from. Read what I write and don't fantasize.
Post by: FreeEnergy on January 31, 2008, 11:26:55 PM
i guess nothing can be transparency without time and space which is something, but I don't know if you can extract energy from it. The only energy you'll extract is nothing of itself?
Post by: Omnibus on February 01, 2008, 12:25:10 AM
i guess nothing can be transparency without time and space which is something, but I don't know if you can extract energy from it. The only energy you'll extract is nothing of itself?
Again, violating of CoE is not about extracting energy. I know it's difficult to get used to that concept but that's the case and it should sink in somehow.
Post by: Bessler007 on February 01, 2008, 12:33:19 AM
Physics and reason according to Omni, coming to a university near you.  Might as well put your brains in "park" and enjoy the ride.

If you would publish this nonsense I'm sure you would looking for a job where you'd have to wear a hat.  The bulk of your conversation would be, "would you like fries with that?"

I can see it now.

Customer:  Sir, I asked for fries!
Omni:  There are fries,  you dolt.  Now get out of this store and stop cluttering it up with  your nonsense.
Customer:  Look in here!  There are no fries!
Omni:  Just because you don't see any fries doesn't mean they're not there.  When you get back to where  you came from the fries will be there.  There is no violation of the creation of fries necessary for this to happen.

Bessler007
Post by: FreeEnergy on February 01, 2008, 12:35:13 AM
i guess nothing can be transparency without time and space which is something, but I don't know if you can extract energy from it. The only energy you'll extract is nothing of itself?
Again, violating of CoE is not about extracting energy. I know it's difficult to get used to that concept but that's the case and it should sink in somehow.

extract is not really the word I was looking for.
Post by: Omnibus on February 01, 2008, 12:39:19 AM
Physics and reason according to Omni, coming to a university near you.  Might as well put your brains in "park" and enjoy the ride.

If you would publish this nonsense I'm sure you would looking for a job where you'd have to wear a hat.  The bulk of your conversation would be, "would you like fries with that?"

I can see it now.

Customer:  Sir, I asked for fries!
Omni:  There are fries,  you dolt.  Now get out of this store and stop cluttering it up with  your nonsense.
Customer:  Look in here!  There are no fries!
Omni:  Just because you don't see any fries doesn't mean they're not there.  When you get back to where  you came from the fries will be there.  There is no violation of the creation of fries necessary for this to happen.

Bessler007
Don't clutter the thread with this silliness.
Post by: Bessler007 on February 01, 2008, 12:45:43 AM
I dare you to publish this nonsense.  You don't have a hair on your behind if you don't.

Bessler007
Post by: Omnibus on February 01, 2008, 12:50:23 AM
I dare you to publish this nonsense.  You don't have a hair on your behind if you don't.

Bessler007
I person who doesn't have a clue dares me. That's funny.
Post by: armagdn03 on February 01, 2008, 01:58:58 AM
My god,

I see you guys have been spending your time on worth endevors!
Post by: DA on February 01, 2008, 02:23:14 AM
My god,

I see you guys have been spending your time on worth endevors!

Well, not exactly.  Mainly this seems to be a proof that any thread can be infected by Omnibus and SMOT and his insults, stifling all worthwhile thoughts.

Lot's of great people here though.

I propose a vote.

Would you rather go to a similar forum, where Omnibus is banned, and insults are not allowed?  One with a moderator who actually deletes useless insults and bans people who degrade the threads?

Vote yes or no.

If there are enough yes votes, someone will start one.  It might help communication and progress.

I'll start, I vote YES!
Post by: Omnibus on February 01, 2008, 02:29:55 AM
My god,

I see you guys have been spending your time on worth endevors!

Well, not exactly.  Mainly this seems to be a proof that any thread can be infected by Omnibus and SMOT and his insults, stifling all worthwhile thoughts.

Lot's of great people here though.

I propose a vote.

Would you rather go to a similar forum, where Omnibus is banned, and insults are not allowed?  One with a moderator who actually deletes useless insults and bans people who degrade the threads?

Vote yes or no.

If there are enough yes votes, someone will start one.  It might help communication and progress.

I'll start, I vote YES!
See how pathetic you are. Having no counterarguments your only resort is voting. Truth in science isn't established by voting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You should go back to Randi or to whoever is paying you to do this creepy stuff and should explain that to him. The Randis of the world are strangers to science (sometimes having good intentions, though) and shouldn't be allowed to set their standards when discussing scientific matters. What nerve.
Post by: DA on February 01, 2008, 02:32:07 AM
Yes 1
No  1
Post by: Omnibus on February 01, 2008, 02:33:55 AM
Yes 1
No  1
Stop this nonsense. You don't own this forum. Go away.
Post by: bw on February 01, 2008, 02:41:25 AM
i vote yes.  this clown is paid by the energy tycoons to distract anyone getting too close for their comfort.  ban his butt.
Post by: Omnibus on February 01, 2008, 02:51:20 AM
i vote yes.  this clown is paid by the energy tycoons to distract anyone getting too close for their comfort.  ban his butt.
The feast of the mediocrities. Arguments, scientific arguments is the only way to win this battle. The rest is clownery.
Post by: DA on February 01, 2008, 02:55:08 AM
Would you rather go to a similar forum, where Omnibus is banned, and insults are not allowed?  One with a moderator who actually deletes useless insults and bans people who degrade the threads?

Vote yes or no.

Yes - 2, DA and bw
No - 1, Omnibus

This is a debate thread, I refuse to clutter a real thread with this.
Post by: Omnibus on February 01, 2008, 03:07:36 AM
Would you rather go to a similar forum, where Omnibus is banned, and insults are not allowed?  One with a moderator who actually deletes useless insults and bans people who degrade the threads?

Vote yes or no.

Yes - 2, DA and bw
No - 1, Omnibus

This is a debate thread, I refuse to clutter a real thread with this.
You shouldn't clutter any thread with this, debate thread or not. You're so weak that banning your opponent is your only resort. The most pathetic thing is that when your opponent has arguments and you don't you consider that an insult. You should be prepared because you'll face many more such insults. I wouldn't say that if you were not so impudent. You asked for that. Go back to your masters, the Randi's of the world, and report what I told you. This may serve them well.
Post by: Omnibus on February 01, 2008, 03:21:28 AM
@All,

Those of you who consider hearing the truth insulting, as @DA does, restrain from posting the first thing that comes to mind. Study, think, ruminate and only then post texts.

@DA should go back to his masters who are paying him directly or indirectly for this underhanded activity he's been performing for a while and tell them that they cannot pay him enough to withstand hearing the truth all the time and not being able to do anything to suppress it. It's abusive to him and he wants to resign.

Oh, another way not to be abused by reading the truth, just skip this thread or any thread, for that matter. Don't participate at all in it. That'll save you a lot of aggravation caused by listening to the truth.

Mediocrities, dishonest people, incompetent ones shouldn't be allowed to govern such discussions no matter how much they outnumber the learned and the decent ones and how many votes they'll gather.
Post by: gaby de wilde on February 01, 2008, 03:47:49 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

I show you free energy.

You where all to busy pretending to know everything.

again non of you even bothered to look.

Everyone who does not look at actual existing technology should not bother to debate it either.

Prove me wrong, show how you looked at any actual tech.

Lets not look and pretend you already know everything.

dishonest people indeed.

But have even you replicated my previous disclosure Omnibus?

The one you said was "interesting"

I'm willing to bet 1 ball and 1 magnet was already to complicated, even for an enthusiast like you.

Now an experiment involves 2 magnets and an iron strip?

Why are you posting in the magnet motor forum if you do-not even own a magnet?

Should that not be the question?

Not even one magnet omnibus?

Do you have an address so that I can send a magnet to your house so that you can do the experiments and look for yourself?

I can send you a buck though e-gold.

Is that enough?
Post by: Omnibus on February 01, 2008, 03:55:12 AM
Gaby, I'll do that later. Can't spread out too thin. I remember, however, how sometime in December last year you proposed experiments very similar to what we're exploring now (@alsetalokin's rig) and @CLaNZeR took them to heart. There are a couple of threads devoted to that exploration here. So, you're not left unnoticed. Keep up the good work.
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 01, 2008, 04:00:38 AM

depends what you think "nothing" is.

According to Omnibus: A nothing is a something you can pull energy from.

How is that for an oxymoron?

Hans von Lieven
No, don't put words in my mouth. This is your interpretation because you think that there must always be a pre-existing energy source to pull energy from. You are about pulling energy from, not me. I've explained that when CoE is violated energy isn't pulled from anywhere but appears out of nothing, there;s no source to pull it from. Read what I write and don't fantasize.

Alright, I amend my statement.

Physics according to Omnibus: A nothing is a something energy can appear from as long as CoE is violated.

Did I get it right this time??

Still an oxymoron though.

I have an idea. We should call this significant finding in physics: The Moron's Oxymoron. That should give him the Nobel Prize he is after.

Hans von Lieven
Post by: Omnibus on February 01, 2008, 04:08:36 AM

depends what you think "nothing" is.

According to Omnibus: A nothing is a something you can pull energy from.

How is that for an oxymoron?

Hans von Lieven
No, don't put words in my mouth. This is your interpretation because you think that there must always be a pre-existing energy source to pull energy from. You are about pulling energy from, not me. I've explained that when CoE is violated energy isn't pulled from anywhere but appears out of nothing, there;s no source to pull it from. Read what I write and don't fantasize.

Alright, I amend my statement.

Physics according to Omnibus: A nothing is a something energy can appear from as long as CoE is violated.

Did I get it right this time??

Still an oxymoron though.

I have an idea. We should call this significant finding in physics: The Moron's Oxymoron. That should give him the Nobel Prize he is after.

Hans von Lieven
Read on and think. More is needed to understand that. Go back in the thread, I've explained it. Might help (or might not if you don't try harder).
Post by: gaby de wilde on February 01, 2008, 04:16:45 AM
Gaby, I'll do that later. Can't spread out too thin. I remember, however, how sometime in December last year you proposed experiments very similar to what we're exploring now (@alsetalokin's rig) and @CLaNZeR took them to heart. There are a couple of threads devoted to that exploration here. So, you're not left unnoticed. Keep up the good work.

We have to keep flooding the farm animals with actual research.

The evidence is abundantly available.

There is so much documentation it really is impossible for little me to even look at everything. And yes, the documentation is a total mess. But thats what you get when everyone puts his effort towards making it go away.

The liars are here to keep you from doing anything useful.

Nothing would make them more angry as to see more smot like devices.

One day might have to give up on the entire Einsteinian science.

Or we will just wave at them from the space ship.

hahaha
Post by: Bessler007 on February 01, 2008, 04:20:25 AM
Hello Da,

The idea of the thread is to bring what might happen in other threads to a place people can look at or ignore.  The whole point is to avoid the clutter in other threads.  So far it's doing a good job.

Omni has said this isn't peer review so you have to wonder why is he attempting to make a case here.  I wonder.  The proper place to make the case the SMOT violates CoE would be in a scientific publication.  Why does he argue here and not before his peers?  One guess is they wouldn't be his peers.  The real truth is (whether he's their equal or not) is they would tear his argument to pieces.

The real reason no publication would publish Omni is that his absurd point has no basis in reality.  If he's a professor he could easily publish his idea where he teaches.  I've read papers at different universities.

The sad truth is Omni is a fraud.  The good news is he's not asking for money.  :)

Bach, bach, bach-it-i bach.  No hair, just feathers!

Bessler007
Post by: Omnibus on February 01, 2008, 04:42:37 AM
Hello Da,

The idea of the thread is to bring what might happen in other threads to a place people can look at or ignore.  The whole point is to avoid the clutter in other threads.  So far it's doing a good job.

Omni has said this isn't peer review so you have to wonder why is he attempting to make a case here.  I wonder.  The proper place to make the case the SMOT violates CoE would be in a scientific publication.  Why does he argue here and not before his peers?  One guess is they wouldn't be his peers.  The real truth is (whether he's their equal or not) is they would tear his argument to pieces.

The real reason no publication would publish Omni is that his absurd point has no basis in reality.  If he's a professor he could easily publish his idea where he teaches.  I've read papers at different universities.

The sad truth is Omni is a fraud.  The good news is he's not asking for money.  :)

Bach, bach, bach-it-i bach.  No hair, just feathers!

Bessler007
Boy, oh, boy ...
Post by: psychopath on February 01, 2008, 05:45:21 AM
Hello Da,

The idea of the thread is to bring what might happen in other threads to a place people can look at or ignore.  The whole point is to avoid the clutter in other threads.  So far it's doing a good job.

Omni has said this isn't peer review so you have to wonder why is he attempting to make a case here.  I wonder.  The proper place to make the case the SMOT violates CoE would be in a scientific publication.  Why does he argue here and not before his peers?  One guess is they wouldn't be his peers.  The real truth is (whether he's their equal or not) is they would tear his argument to pieces.

The real reason no publication would publish Omni is that his absurd point has no basis in reality.  If he's a professor he could easily publish his idea where he teaches.  I've read papers at different universities.

The sad truth is Omni is a fraud.  The good news is he's not asking for money.  :)

Bach, bach, bach-it-i bach.  No hair, just feathers!

Bessler007

You have so much fath in mainstream science. What you do not realise, is that mainstream science ignores many things out of the ordinary, because it threatens what they have worked for their whole lives.

When Einstein published his papers, some scientists simply denied it, the refused to even look at his work. The wright brothers were "crackpots". Galileo was supressed. There is no secret conspiracy, the oil companies don't care about your youtube videos, this happens naturally, many people resist new things. People want to make sense of the world, so they dismiss unusual things.

This has decreased over the years, but it is still here.

We do not know if the smot is not overunity, and we do not know if a looped smot is possible or not. And there is nothing wrong with this, we don't have to make something up just because we can't explain it, since that is religion, not science. Just because you have failed to do it doesn't make it "impossible".
Post by: PolyMatrix on February 01, 2008, 06:53:39 AM
Been looking around the net and Joined the Joe's Cell free energy device group  on yahoo and there is not one person that says it does not work. There are many saying that it does work! Fuel line to engine is disconected and the engine is running!

Now if ever there was proof of a new energy source that would be it.
Post by: PolyMatrix on February 01, 2008, 06:58:49 AM
Here is an example of the emails I am getting from this group.

Quote
Hi Patrick,

I thought that was clear, but I guess I was wrong. What is happening is that the aetheric energy creates standing waves along the metal at nodes which are exactly 1.89475" long. So as long as your tubes are cut to any multiple of this length a resonant condition is set up to maximize the energy output. Much like a radio antenna.

All the central tubes in a cell will still be cut to the same length, but precisely at one of these odd lengths.

The canister needs to be long enough to accommodate a water depth at the next length up the chart. The water acts just like another length of tubing and will also exhibit the same nodal lengths.

The tubes need to be spaced about .61" off the canister bottom. And the optimum tube spacing would be .61" as well, but this is somewhat impractical without rolling tubes as BW did in his cell.

The one cell that I modified, essentially went to stage 3 without ANY charging, which is exactly what Dave Lowrance predicted it would do. The man is amazing! I do think however that the water should be prepped first to maximize the cells output.

I'm sorry if I missed your email about JC advances. Possibly I never got it, because I generally pay attention to any email that you send.

My document in both JCFED and JC2 titled "Assembling and Charging a Joe Cell" basicly covers my technique for "prepping" water. All it really discusses that's new is the fact that it's nearly impossible to charge water in a standard JC because of the gap spacing, so I simply suggest people build a small flat plate electrolysis cell to prep water for the JC. With plate spacing around 1/8" is easy to generate the H & O necessary to strip all disolved iron out of the water. Once this is done and the water filtered, than most any JC will go right to stage 3. This process along with passivating both cells with strong Phosphoric acid eliminates the brown scum problem and should allow the cell to hold stage 3 for a long time.

It's also important to get the tube polarities set properly, whether this is accomplished through dowseing, or testing of the cells residual voltage is unimportant, but it definitely needs to be done. I've been meaning to write up a short document regarding how to do this with the voltages, but haven't gotten to it yet. It can be a little tricky!

I've found that simply carrying a stage 3 cell inside the car will give a decent shandy mode operation, even without a transfer tube or even electrical connections. However I don't know how long the stage 3 will last! Possibly a cell built to the lengths specified here will hold stage 3 forever, but that needs to be tested. A cell not set up to these lengths should probably be given a 1 minute charge from the car battery before driving each morning. It's important to not leave the battery connected for too long as this can kill the cell.

The real problem that most people will run into is how the the engine computer responds to the cell, and different cars will have different responses. My 86 Accord got a performance boost of possibly as much as 25%, but saw no mileage improvement. So it's really going to be important to work with the O2 or MAP sensors to spoof the computer.

In summarizing, I think people need to follow through on all these steps to really optimize their cells. I'd like it if someone would roll a set of tubes to this larger gap size, because it could be the path to a true stage 4 cell. But that's only conjecture on my part.

Now all we need to do is get to work on the cell / engine interface and  reliable gasless operation.

Bernie
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Kelly
To: Bernie
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:01 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Joe Cell info

Hi Bernie,

Can you explain your table to me? Does:

1 x = 1.894745
2 x = 3.7949
3 x = 5.684235

mean a 1" diameter s/s tube 1.89" tall surrounded by a 2" diameter s/s tube 3.79" tall, both surrounded by a 3" diameter s/s tube 5.68" tall ? If that is the case, then the inner tubes would presumably be totally submerged.

If that is not the case, then are you saying that for a set of four or five concentric s/s tubes, then 3.79" tall is a particularly good height for the whole set of tubes ? If so, to what does the "2 x" in the first column refer ?

Sorry to be slow on the uptake here, but I bet that most people reading it won't have understood it either.

As I write this, rain is pounding on the window beside me and a gale is blowing. Have people in cold, wet climates had any sustained shandy success with a Joe Cell? I am glad to hear of advances in this field as there is clearly great potential in the system.

All the best,

Patrick

Bernie <bernieheere@ peak.org> wrote:
Patrick,

I just released the following to the Joe cell groups, and thought maybe you might want to incorporate it into your JC information. I'm hoping others will step up and test other lengths, but I was quite impressed with the one length that I tested.

I recently asked Dave Lowrance to evaluate Joe cells for me, and after some analysis and testing of one, he has come up with the following:

Tube sets cut to any of the following lengths should be optimum:

Inches
1 x = 1.894745
2 x = 3.7949
3 x = 5.684235
4 x = 7.5898
5 x = 9.473725
6 x = 11.36847
7 x = 13.263215
8 x = 15.1796

Along with this is a recommended bottom spacing for the pack off the bottom
SS of .61" and a recommendation that the water height be set to the next
length up the chart.

I cut a set to the 2x length set the bottom spacing to the .61 distance and
filled the water to the 3x spacing. I filled the cell with raw (unprepped)
water and let it sit overnight. When I applied power the cell went to stage
3 immediately. This cell is assembled in a \$12.95 Wal Mart canister.

Incidently, along with this is a suggestion that the optimum tube spacing
should be the .61" as well, so obviously the .5" tube spacing is at best a
compromise. BTW, according to Peter Stevens, Joe has also
stated that the gap should be bigger than .5. Obviously this tube spacing
would require rolling custom tubes.

Bernie

Post by: bw on February 01, 2008, 03:06:49 PM
hi anus-bus,
how much money does the energy cartel pay someone like you to call people who are working on this stuff stupid?  does it pay more if you can get them to give up?  is there a bonus for that?  do you get free vacations or anything if you get more than one to throw in the towel so to speak?  just curious.   one other question.
is this really worth selling your soul for?  think about it please before you do more harm.  free energy is everywhere and many devices like joe's cell, steve mark's tpu, al's magnet wheel that accelerates to over 4000 rpm's and holds that rpm, just to mention a few are here now and being tested and improved upon.  i believe this will be the year that energy giants are overwhelmed because of these forums.  for the last 100+ years they could buy and squash almost every new development because inventors would patent and sell their idea.   now we share on forums like this.

bw
Post by: Bessler007 on February 01, 2008, 04:04:03 PM
I went to Gaby's site a couple of times with the same results.  Any browser I had open on any desktop (4 of them) with all the tabs opened would magically close for me.

I am going to look at your link, Gaby, when I can get a high octane browser that can handle what's there.  In the meantime why don't you open a thread here with your ideas.

Bessler007
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 01, 2008, 04:30:56 PM
Have a look at this one. This arrived in the mail this morning and claims to demonstrate that work can be done with permanent magnets.

http://student.ccbcmd.edu/~norman/magsdowork.html

Hans von Lieven
Post by: Bessler007 on February 01, 2008, 04:35:35 PM
I'd like to thank everyone (and you know who you are) who has taken the time to state my opinions for me.  Since I'm not too sure what I think this has been quite beneficial.

Further, since I am not quite sure what I think it's virtually impossible to decide what I should conclude.  Again I'd like to thank all those willing to step out in faith and state my conclusions for me.  This has been such an overwhelming help to me I can't hardly put it into words.  I'll be forever grateful.

As luck would have it I've met a venture capitalist willing to fund any idea I have to what ever extent it needs to be funded.  Well, as you can imagine being someone that doesn't know what to say or what to conclude I naturally need some assistance deciding (again) how I should spend these resources.

I've decided to fund the building of any SMOT design proposed by any one willing to draw up the specifications.  Don't feel restrained by the cost.  If the balls need to be made of perfectly formed spheres of platinum with a one foot radius and iron plating that's no problem.  If there need to be fifty of them don't worry.  We can cover that expense.  I'm real sure if every imaginable design is investigated we can prove ....  Well, I don't know what's to be proved.  I'll leave that up to the geniuses that know what other people should think and say and what they should conclude.

It just occurred to me some of the SMOT designs might work but not on earth.  If your design needs to orbit the earth or even the sun at the extremes of the solar system don't let that stop you from drawing them up.  As I said money's no object.  Math and mainstream science be damned!!  Yeah.

Bessler007
Post by: PolyMatrix on February 01, 2008, 05:36:41 PM
@Gaby

Your design should be cheap to make and prove, but I think it would just find a sticky point and stop.
One thing that seems to be clear in the research is that a harmonic is needed to keep the system(s) moving.
Post by: hoptoad on February 02, 2008, 04:24:49 AM
Arrgh, I just woke up from a daymare and realized the true nature of the Smartly Marketed Overpriced Toy!  >:(
The acceptance of the Acronym is a subliminal ploy in a giant conspiracy to make us all buy more toys!  :D
KneeDeep!
Post by: RunningBare on February 02, 2008, 08:48:33 AM

As for what he says regarding whether or not this is OU that should be ignored altogether. It's not up to him to judge what is and what isn't. I've had prior discussions with him and have determined that his understanding of the subtleties of science is wanting. Let's see the effect shown in the video continuing for 7.5 hours, as claimed, and then see how anybody can deny it's OU.

Wheres your replication Omnibus?, is it working like alsetalokin's?, if it is not, stop cluttering the other thread with this nonsense.

I have proved conclusively and beyond a doubt that faking violation of CoE  is indeed possible ;)

I have even created an equation for it.   fkecoe=(nwmn+mag+vhs)

Post by: gaby de wilde on February 02, 2008, 10:54:25 AM
I have proved conclusively and beyond a doubt that faking violation of CoE  is indeed possible

YES, and you have destroyed hundreds of free energy discussions with dumb remarks. I remember it so clearly.

you have shown that lies can prevent effort from bearing fruit.

Do remember, here you should be banned for even a little bit of that kind of effort.

You have clearly and accurately shown us how the disinformation brigade gets it's minions to help them spread the lies.

Remember how you discovered the truth behind your Scientology idol.

Are you still worshiping Tom Darren?  :-*

I remember you said hundreds of the most horrible things about Joe.

You then moved on to build the Newman machine.

You did a horrible job at it!!

Don't say it isn't so now! HAHAHAHAHA

You build it specially to show it didn't work!

You light a neon tube with 25 ma

Or may we say you fried the neon with 25 ma?

Or is this overunity from solar panels?

Don't forget I described the "why it works" part of the Newman machine long long ago already.

gabydewilde - magnetmotor

Here you have an exact and accurate description of why it makes free energy. Just spewing nonsense doesn't make it go away and neither can your vandalism prevent it from existing.

Unless you like it when Scientology Tom makes a better reality for you you shouldn't do it to others urself first.

I will be soon to follow!

You go see the http://www.storyofstuff.com

See now? Everything is fake dude!

Here http://einsteinhoax.com

It's all trickery! non is real!

You are not just derailing a bit of free energy research. You are promoting a world war about energy resources. Because that is why everyone else is so interested in the free energy topic.

So because of the ignorance of people like you millions of other people have to die. It will take years to implement free energy into the global economy. Time we do-not have.

If some keep posting nonsense into each and every discussion then others won't be able to find the truth.

It's simple as that.

You deserve all credit for it.

It is what you do.
Post by: gaby de wilde on February 02, 2008, 11:06:33 AM
As luck would have it I've met a venture capitalist willing to fund any idea I have to what ever extent it needs to be funded.  Well, as you can imagine being someone that doesn't know what to say or what to conclude I naturally need some assistance deciding (again) how I should spend these resources.

ok here is the deal:

You have to buy a browns gas machine.

They have been on the market for 50+  years now.

I don't think science is going to debunk it any time soon.

People have been selling buying and building the machines commercially for more then 50 years.

You then build a generator you melt some bricks or something and build an external combustion engine, a steam turbine or a compressed air heater.

Or you can just use it to make cars more efficient and stick Paterson's vortex turbine on top.

You will be covered in MIB faster then you can say "COMMON DUCTED ATOMIC OXY-HYDROGEN"

Then later make this
http://clean-nuclear-energy.go-here.nl

And this
http://wind-car.go-here.nl

Good luck.
Post by: PolyMatrix on February 02, 2008, 06:12:23 PM
@Gaby
In reference to the 'wind car'.

Are you aware that there is a design of 'fan' or turbine that no matter which direction air the air is travelling the 'fan turns in the same direction.

I saw this design around 1979
Post by: Bessler007 on February 02, 2008, 07:53:56 PM

?COMMIE DUCT TAPED ATOMIC OXY-HYDROGENATED MORON!

I could make a brown's gas generator, there's no need to buy one.

Human knowledge of free energy is as old as sailing vessels and water wheels.  Considering the ancient nature of this understanding the reasonable question is "why haven't any practical applications surfaced?"  There are wind powered water pumps in cow fields around the world . . .

If one person were accomplishing anything practical it would spread like wild fire just by word of mouth.  This spread of technology would have happened before the pony express.

Maybe the one question the skeptic has is, "when?"

Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ
Post by: Bessler007 on February 02, 2008, 08:02:11 PM
If my investments inflated to the extent my electric bill has I wouldn't mind paying 400% more over the last 3 years for power.  That's why a lot of people would like to know ?When??

Seeing the promises of "invention" but not seeing the practical applications on the market are enough to make even Tesla a skeptic.

Bessler007
Post by: PolyMatrix on February 02, 2008, 08:29:49 PM
@Bessler007

The when question has been answered numerous times.

In 1978 were people asking the question "when will Mt. St. Helens erupt"
Is anybody able to answer with certainty "when will people land on Mars or colonise the moon or the oceans"
when will we learn to ask sensible when questions?"
Post by: supersam on February 02, 2008, 08:58:59 PM
@all,

maybe when big oil, gets their hand out of it and it is legal, for citizens of the u.s.a. to at least be able to drop a completely self contained power unit in a stream, without the army corps of engineers, having to put them in jail for it, then maybe "free energy" can exist.  or maybe solar configurations, earth batterry systems, sm tpu's, magnet motors, or any other free energy devic might see the light of day.  but i think they will all end up taxed to their on demise if found.  it will be the moonshine of the twentyfirst century!   mark my words on that.

lol
sam

ps: can't wait for my first batch,  and then the unspeakable gains, that can be made in the first few years before they catch on.  maybe i'll be a kenedy one day.

pss:  for all those, that think patenting is the way to go, with a free enegy device,  just look at the track record.  even two years of sales wheather exclusive or not before the laws were changed could give you all kinds of money for lobyist to buy off politicians to insure your future gains.  just put it out there!
Post by: Bessler007 on February 02, 2008, 10:52:52 PM
You might have missed the point so I'll restate it.  The technology people are looking at today is well beyond the old technologies available to the hobbyist.  They're making significant strides in efficiencies and developing nano-machines.  People are looking at every possible combination of everything imaginable.

The question, ?when? was rhetorical and theoretically has an answer that could be expressed in terms of time.

Another question is, ?how much of a factor would you have to multiply that answer with to arrive at time when people working in their garage are going to make a novel discovery beyond what the geek squad is working on??

I think it's a very big number.

Bessler007
Post by: Bessler007 on February 02, 2008, 11:01:21 PM
Here is another way of looking at it.  Beardon is hawking a cd entitled ?Energy from the Vacuum.?  Now if there were viable free energy wouldn't it be more productive of his time to apply this theory and make kits or models?

Question: Where does all electromagnetic (EM) field energy and all EM potential energy come from in the first place?
Answer: From the vacuum all around us.

Beardon has been selling diy theories since Adam was a corporal.

Bessler007
Post by: psychopath on February 03, 2008, 01:05:30 AM
You might have missed the point so I'll restate it.  The technology people are looking at today is well beyond the old technologies available to the hobbyist.  They're making significant strides in efficiencies and developing nano-machines.
Bessler007

Well generally the hobbyist doesn't make integrated circuits, but he uses them together with other technologies.
Post by: PolyMatrix on February 03, 2008, 01:07:27 AM
@Bessler007

The 'geek' factor as you call it is controlled mostly by the need to generate something that is marketable. That means that there is a requirement to justify putting money into the research. There is very little research done on the basis of 'fun' as self-funded individuals or part-time amateurs mostly do that research.

How many 'geeks' are looking into ways of encouraging useful tree growth in the rain forests? How many 'geeks' are making sure that the bio-chemical 'discoveries' that plants already use are not being lost due to extinction? How many engineers and chemists are researching ways to recover the waste products we create.

Why can I not find evidence that the Joe cell does not work?
Post by: supersam on February 03, 2008, 03:13:13 AM
@polymatrix,

i have never said that, people are not looking, you are an example of one that is looking.  you are veryy rare in this world!  please keep up the good work that you do for us!!  you are very important to our future!!!!

can't you see this?  you are the future of mankind!!  please understand this and work for mankinds development outside of political, social, and economic and religious boundaries!!!!  to do any less is genoside!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol
sam

ps:  or to coin a phrase, "SPECIEOSIDE"  meaning EXTINCTION FOR THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE"!!!!!!
Post by: Bessler007 on February 03, 2008, 03:59:58 AM
PolyMatrix,

I've found most looking into fe/ou are hoping to hit the mother lode.

Fundamental research happens at the university level all the time.  Lucent or formerly Bell Labs did research beyond any university in the world.  They would investigate ideas with no clue of commercial applications.

The purpose of fundamental research is to understand the nature of reality to the highest degree possible.  Some of Bell Lab's work was entirely theoretical looking purely at ideas.

DARPA has PhD's  coming and going at all hours of the day and night.  If a scientist has an idea and needs to access their lab at 2am they drive to it, go through human security then pass several biometric access points just to get to their lab and check an idea.  That happens very often.

People looking at the fundamental nature of reality eat, breath, drink and sleep in that world.  They're intense.  They can devour reams of technical literature quicker than you could go through a bowl of pudding then cite the page where an idea was.

When you make the point:

That means that there is a requirement to justify putting money into the research.

I totally disagree with it.  Companies need to carry out fundamental research to remain competitive.

Bessler007

edit:  I thought about this as I read it and I'd have to say I don't totally disagree with the point.  The requirement to justify research would be some basis in a reality that some very intense people imagine reality to be.
Post by: PolyMatrix on February 03, 2008, 06:42:57 AM
@Bessler007

Things I have noticed about PhD's and very intelligent people is that
A) Sometimes they find it difficult to be both practical and inventive.
B) They find it difficult to uncompartmentalise their knowledge (take an idea from any subject and try to fit it in other subjects)
C) They never question why the world social and economic situation is such a mess.
D) Very few will challenge and test what is obviously unbelievable just for the fun of it.
Post by: PolyMatrix on February 03, 2008, 10:44:09 AM
This is fun:

Professor Searl on the SEG magnetic motor

Explaining how the laws of Newton are being broken.
Post by: Bessler007 on February 03, 2008, 12:38:40 PM
What I've noticed about very intelligent people is thay have a natural curiosity that began when they were children and lasts their whole life.  They're never done learning.

Bessler007