Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83677
  • *Latest: Seafarer

  • *Total Posts: 515692
  • *Total Topics: 15375
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 18

Author Topic: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.  (Read 41789 times)

Offline berferd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #30 on: March 16, 2006, 01:13:45 PM »
We may then carry out a second cycle (lift the ball from initial position manually? -> place it at the input of the device -> magnetic field raises spontaneously the ball up the ramp -> spontaneous fall from end of ramp -> initial position underneath the device).

We can then carry out the cycle a third time ...

and so on ...

Every time (after every cycle) the ball always falls back underneath the device where, recall, its initial position is. This initial position of the ball after every cycle is entirely equivalent to its initial position after any cycle.

The beauty of the whole thing is that when the ball gets back to its initial position (always one and the same) after every cycle we are given a ?present?, a portion of energy for which we have spent no work, we have paid nothing.

So, am I understanding this right?  You manually place the ball in the "input to the device", release it, and it winds up in the "initial position", stopping after a single cycle.  To get it to go again, you need to manually pick up the ball from the "initial position" and place it in the "input to the device", and release it?



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #31 on: March 16, 2006, 06:16:44 PM »
Quote
So, am I understanding this right?  You manually place the ball in the "input to the device", release it, and it winds up in the "initial position", stopping after a single cycle.  To get it to go again, you need to manually pick up the ball from the "initial position" and place it in the "input to the device", and release it?

Correct. This allows you to get excess energy periodically.

tjanzer

  • Guest
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #32 on: March 16, 2006, 07:33:30 PM »
I remember way back when I was just a kid, I used to do the same thing with my Hot Wheels cars. I would set up the track in a "U" shape, raise one side about 4" and let the car go. The SMOT is a great learning device, making balls roll uphill is pretty cool, but it is usless in the real world (as far as I can see right now).

Plus, just think about it. You are moving an item from point "A" to point "B" which in respect is close to point "A". Why fight gravity? Just use it like the hot wheels track??   :D

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #32 on: March 16, 2006, 07:33:30 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #33 on: March 16, 2006, 07:42:31 PM »
Quote
I remember way back when I was just a kid, I used to do the same thing with my Hot Wheels cars. I would set up the track in a "U" shape, raise one side about 4" and let the car go. The SMOT is a great learning device, making balls roll uphill is pretty cool, but it is usless in the real world (as far as I can see right now).

Quite the contrary. SMOT is very useful to the real world. It produces periodically excess energy. Producing energy without paying for it is quite useful to the real world.

Quote
Plus, just think about it. You are moving an item from point "A" to point "B" which in respect is close to point "A". Why fight gravity? Just use it like the hot wheels track??

Not clear what you mean ...

Offline berferd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #34 on: March 17, 2006, 12:13:38 AM »
Quote
So, am I understanding this right?? You manually place the ball in the "input to the device", release it, and it winds up in the "initial position", stopping after a single cycle.? To get it to go again, you need to manually pick up the ball from the "initial position" and place it in the "input to the device", and release it?

Correct. This allows you to get excess energy periodically.

So, to get the device to execute each cycle, it is necessary for you to pick up the ball from the "initial position", and move it to the "input to the device". (Personally, I would call these "initial position" and "final position", respectively.  But we'll stick with your nomenclature.)

After the ball stops at the end of the cycle (in the "initial position") , is there any magnetic force acting upon it?

When you place the ball in the "input to the device" and before you let go of it, is there any magnetic force acting upon it?

When you move the ball from the "initial position" to the "input to the device", are you moving the ball from one physical location to another?  (i.e. are the "initial position" and the "input to the device" separated in space by any distance, or are they precisely the same location?)


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #34 on: March 17, 2006, 12:13:38 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3257
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #35 on: March 17, 2006, 12:25:11 AM »
metacafe-video:magnetic-balls-gun

S
  d L

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #36 on: March 17, 2006, 01:08:55 AM »
Quote
After the ball stops at the end of the cycle (in the "initial position") , is there any magnetic force acting upon it?

Magnetic force on the ball, if any, at the initial position is always the same after each cycle.

Quote
When you place the ball in the "input to the device" and before you let go of it, is there any magnetic force acting upon it?

Yes there is and it is exactly the same for each cycle. Besides, the magnetic force acting on the ball when placing it at the input of the device is attractive. This makes the work you do to place it there less than the work you would need to place the ball there if there were no magnetic field. This is in favor of producing even more excess energy (in the overall energy balance) than if not accounting for the said attractive force.

Quote
When you move the ball from the "initial position" to the "input to the device", are you moving the ball from one physical location to another?  (i.e. are the "initial position" and the "input to the device" separated in space by any distance, or are they precisely the same location?)

Sure. When I move the ball from the "initial position" to the "input to the device" I?m moving the ball from one physical location to another. These are two different physical locations.

The work for this motion, which is the same for every cycle, is accounted for in the overall energy balance which comes out positive, that is, excess energy is produced after every cycle.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #36 on: March 17, 2006, 01:08:55 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline berferd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #37 on: March 17, 2006, 04:05:08 AM »
The work for this motion, which is the same for every cycle, is accounted for in the overall energy balance which comes out positive, that is, excess energy is produced after every cycle.

So, you place the ball at the "input of the device" and release it, and the ball moves to the "initial postion" and stops.  For it to go again, you must manually pick up the ball and place it at the "input of the device" so it can again move once and and stop.

This is a pretty simple device.  Do you have any guesses why nobody has ever succeeded in accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself?




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #38 on: March 17, 2006, 05:38:00 AM »
Quote
Quote
The work for this motion, which is the same for every cycle, is accounted for in the overall energy balance which comes out positive, that is, excess energy is produced after every cycle.

So, you place the ball at the "input of the device" and release it, and the ball moves to the "initial postion" and stops.  For it to go again, you must manually pick up the ball and place it at the "input of the device" so it can again move once and and stop.

This is a pretty simple device.  Do you have any guesses why nobody has ever succeeded in accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself?

First answer this ? did you convince yourself that the SMOT produces periodically excess energy?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #38 on: March 17, 2006, 05:38:00 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline berferd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #39 on: March 18, 2006, 12:04:14 AM »
Quote
Quote
The work for this motion, which is the same for every cycle, is accounted for in the overall energy balance which comes out positive, that is, excess energy is produced after every cycle.

So, you place the ball at the "input of the device" and release it, and the ball moves to the "initial postion" and stops.? For it to go again, you must manually pick up the ball and place it at the "input of the device" so it can again move once and and stop.

This is a pretty simple device.? Do you have any guesses why nobody has ever succeeded in accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself?

First answer this ? did you convince yourself that the SMOT produces periodically excess energy?

No.  I haven't, and it doesn't.  I'm just trying to figure out why you think it does.  One would think the fact that it stops after one cycle, and requires you to manually place the ball back at the input would be a big clue that it doesn't create free energy.  (And if it's a "trivial engineering task" to arrange it so the ball does wind up back at the beginning to cycle itself ad infinitum, why has nobody done it?  This would surely blow the skeptics' minds.)

Both gravity and magnetism are conservative fields.  No matter how clever you think you are in arranging motion through either field or a combination of both fields, it's impossible to extract energy from a process whose starting and ending points are exactly the same (i.e. the same magnetic potential and the same gravitational potential).  The fact that you have to pick up the ball from the ending point (your "initial position") and manually place it at the starting point (your "input to the device") should tell you these two points are not the same.

So, in light of your belief that the device does create free energy, do you have any guesses why nobody has ever succeeded in accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself?


Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #40 on: March 18, 2006, 12:45:53 AM »
First, you should convince yourself that the SMOT produces periodically excess energy before you ask further questions. You are trying to sidetrack the conversation and in this way to cover up your lack of understanding.

Your lack of understanding shows in the following sentence:

Quote
One would think the fact that it stops after one cycle, and requires you to manually place the ball back at the input would be a big clue that it doesn't create free energy.  (And if it's a "trivial engineering task" to arrange it so the ball does wind up back at the beginning to cycle itself ad infinitum, why has nobody done it?  This would surely blow the skeptics' minds.)

That is incorrect. The fact that it stops and requires you manually to place the ball back at the input cannot serve at all as an argument against the production of excess energy after a particular cycle.

As I explained already several times the work to place manually the ball back at the input is more than fully compensated by the energy the ball releases when it falls back from the output of the device to the initial position. Not only that the said work is recovered but an additional energy is also given off equal to the potential energy which the ball has acquired spontaneously (under the action of the magnetic field) when the field lifted it up the ramp.

You make me repeat this over and over again because you don?t want to hear it. Your lack of desire to hear this argument and to understand it doesn?t constitute a refutation.

Quote
Both gravity and magnetism are conservative fields.  No matter how clever you think you are in arranging motion through either field or a combination of both fields, it's impossible to extract energy from a process whose starting and ending points are exactly the same (i.e. the same magnetic potential and the same gravitational potential).  The fact that you have to pick up the ball from the ending point (your "initial position") and manually place it at the starting point (your "input to the device") should tell you these two points are not the same.

This is incorrect. In the conservative magnetic field of the SMOT part of the motion along the closed loop is done spontaneously, without you spending work (namely, the work to raise the ball up the ramp). On the other hand, the work along this closed loop to raise the ball from the initial position to the input is also compensated fully and spontaneously by the gravity. Thus, the closed loop consists of three parts

1) work spent by you to lift the ball from the initial position to the level where the input is,

2) work returned to you by gravity to bring down the ball from the level the input is to the initial position. This recovered work fully compensates the work spent by you when lifting the ball.

3) plus the work returned to you by gravity which brings the ball from the top of the ramp to the level where input is. This work is in addition to any work that you have spent during the cycle.

You, of course, don?t gain any energy along a closed loop in a conservative field if you have gone along the loop all by yourself. If somewhere along this closed loop you have been helped for free to go along some part of it you do gain energy. Indeed, for the section of the closed loop which causes the ball to go up the ramp you have spent no energy. The energy spent for the said raising is a ?present? to you when you do the overall balance.

Understand this first before you go further with your questions.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #40 on: March 18, 2006, 12:45:53 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline berferd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #41 on: March 18, 2006, 01:35:42 AM »
Understand this first before you go further with your questions.

OK.  I will stipulate to whatever you claim about the deivce.  Now, please answer this:

This is a pretty simple device.  Do you have any guesses why nobody has ever succeeded in accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself?  This would definitely blow the skeptics' minds.  Why hasn't anybody done it?

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #42 on: March 18, 2006, 01:46:35 AM »
Quote
Understand this first before you go further with your questions.

OK.  I will stipulate to whatever you claim about the deivce.  Now, please answer this:

This is a pretty simple device.  Do you have any guesses why nobody has ever succeeded in accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself?  This would definitely blow the skeptics' minds.  Why hasn't anybody done it?

As I said, before asking questions such as the above, understand what I already explained. You are trying to avoid this step and you think in avoiding it you refute something. No, you don?t.

Offline berferd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #43 on: March 18, 2006, 03:25:51 AM »
Quote
Understand this first before you go further with your questions.

OK.? I will stipulate to whatever you claim about the deivce.? Now, please answer this:

This is a pretty simple device.? Do you have any guesses why nobody has ever succeeded in accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself?? This would definitely blow the skeptics' minds.? Why hasn't anybody done it?

As I said, before asking questions such as the above, understand what I already explained. You are trying to avoid this step and you think in avoiding it you refute something. No, you don?t.

Oh, come on.  I understand exactly what you've already explained.  I just don't agree with it.

Whether I believe the device produces free energy or not has absolutely nothing to do with any reasons why nobody has ever accomplished the "trivial engineering task" (your words) of getting the ball to get back to the "input of the device" by itself so it recycles by itself.

I am asking you a simple question.  Why do you refuse to answer?

My position is that the device does *not* produce free energy.  This is consistent with well known and thorougly tested physical laws, and it explains why nobody has ever "closed the loop".  Your position is that the device *does* produce free energy.  This goes against well known and thoroughly testes physical laws and raises the question: Why hasn't anybody ever "closed the loop" and shut the skeptics up?

Your refusal to answer the question speaks volumes.


Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #44 on: March 18, 2006, 04:01:27 AM »
Quote
Oh, come on.  I understand exactly what you've already explained.  I just don't agree with it.

This statement is unsupported by viable arguments. People utter various things and claim they agree or disagree. This doesn?t mean that their opinions express truth. Truth in science is only achieved through viable arguments based on the scientific method. You have given none.

Quote
My position is that the device does *not* produce free energy.

Your position on that matter is wrong and I explained why. You opinion cannot express truth just because it?s your opinion. You have to understand that.

Quote
This is consistent with well known and thorougly tested physical laws, and it explains why nobody has ever "closed the loop".

My explanation is consistent with the well known and thoroughly tested physical laws. The fact that you don?t understand that doesn?t mean that my explanation is in violation of these laws.

Closing the loop is not one of the requirements for the explanation I gave to be consistent with the known physical laws. You do not understand that. This lack of understanding bothers you and you keep asking questions irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote
Your position is that the device *does* produce free energy.  This goes against well known and thoroughly testes physical laws

No, it doesn?t. My explanation doesn?t go against well known and thoroughly tested physical laws. You don?t understand that and you?d better try to understand it before you go any further. Otherwise you will keep asking questions which are irrelevant to this discussion.

Quote
and raises the question: Why hasn't anybody ever "closed the loop" and shut the skeptics up?

As I said, closing the loop is not a requirement for the SMOT to produce periodically excess energy.

Periodically ...

Quote
Your refusal to answer the question speaks volumes.

This is nonsense. Your question is as childish as the following questions:

Why is it that we have not seen a self-sustained Tokamak and every time we ask the recipients of billions of dollars for the project they always postpone the deadline with 50 years?

Why weren?t computers on our desks 57 years ago? Scam artists then were talking gibberish about some new sort of binary computation that may turn one day useful.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2006, 11:58:51 AM by Omnibus »

 

OneLink