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

GDPR and DSGVO law

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

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

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

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84193
  • *Latest: eirik

  • *Total Posts: 897212
  • *Total Topics: 15809
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 15
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.  (Read 46015 times)

Offline DarkLight

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #90 on: March 20, 2006, 12:10:07 AM »
And here the scheme with the problem

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4779
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #91 on: March 20, 2006, 12:24:25 AM »
1.The SMOT experiment shows 34% lost,important for the construction
 ? of a closed-SMOT- cylcle ! 1-0,34=0,66 means 66% max.conversion potential !

2.SMOT V2 as next step is more Daniel Baker-ramp related !

3.The mainly interest-I think-is not this little-sweety demonstration object
 ? with an extraordinary result of 0,424mJ (3600000J=1KWH) action gain but
 ? the exposed Magnet-Motors designs from Greg Watson and JL Naudin !

Closed-ball-Cycle concepts:Thrumball or Batelle-Institute

Sincerely
 ? ? ? ? ? ?de Lanca

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #92 on: March 20, 2006, 12:26:16 AM »
Quote
Paul uses the same principle as in SMOT, but he uses a magnet instead of steel ball. The advantige of this is that we have no unwanted magnetising like in the case with steel ball. The field here is more stable and predictable. But here remains the SMOT problem  output -  intput that appears when we close the loop. I have made schemes of the magnetic field to illustrate that.  The rotor magnet moves because of the asimetry of the magnetic field. Until we have asimetry whit constat value and direction, we have a force with constant value and direction witch moves the rotor magnet and we can drain excess energy from the device. But when we try to close the loop, there where the end of spiral of stator magnets has to be connected to it's beginig the field is hard  deformed. The asymetry changes it's value and direction and the rotor magnet stops.

That?s correct. That?s why Paul uses the most intuitive approach ? applying energy from without to overcome the sticky spot. It appears that this problem is solved in a more attractive way in Wesley Snyder?s device (of course, we?re still waiting for the video of its independent run). It is interesting to see how he achieves that constant asymmetry leading to a net force tangential to the rotor just by the specifics in construction. It would be nice if this could be modeled in a way similar to the schematics you gave.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #92 on: March 20, 2006, 12:26:16 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #93 on: March 20, 2006, 12:29:57 AM »
Quote
the exposed Magnet-Motors designs from Greg Watson and JL Naudin !

Closed-ball-Cycle concepts:Thrumball or Batelle-Institute

de Lanca, has Naudin achieved experimentally a closed-loop experiment (Closed-ball-Cycle concepts) or these are just ideas? If so, could you please post a link?

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4779
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #94 on: March 20, 2006, 01:46:24 AM »
Their work is exposed in the jnaudin-webpage,
from SMOT to SMOT V2/SMOT MK3 to RMOD/RMOG,
but remark the last update:1999 !

It is time to ask them about :progress ?

"Thrumball(?)/Batelle-Institute"? each of them developped
Closed-Cycle-systems,but not based by magnetism/steel balls or fluids,
they used balls as Energy-Transmitter !
Excuse me,but I can not more remembering the right parameters to refind the
information,my last relation with that info:+/- 10 years before !

Sincerely
? ? ? ? ? ? de Lanca?


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #94 on: March 20, 2006, 01:46:24 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline FredWalter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #95 on: March 20, 2006, 06:51:11 AM »
The Electrocharger (Sigmaautomotive) is the only not direct overunity-related
technology

Please explain why you believe their battery charger is 'overunity-related technology'.

all other named patents-numbers/companies are really overunity-related,
with each of them I can construct a closed-cycle-system
Impulse-Motor-Generator-outputunit recycling as Impulse

Since you don't own any of their motors, how can you claim to construct 'a closed-cycle-system' with their motors?

How can you say with any confidence that their products are 'overunity-related'?

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4779
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #96 on: March 21, 2006, 12:10:03 AM »
Only because own solid-physical experiments,based with connection
of motor/generator,Transformer-modulations,Trafo-Magnet-integration,
"Rust-Trinitymotor"-technics comparision and...,and....;

Not only "overunity.com"-reader/commentator,also self-made searcher !

Sincerely
? ? ? ? ? ? de Lanca

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #96 on: March 21, 2006, 12:10:03 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline berferd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #97 on: March 21, 2006, 01:02:20 AM »
At the expense of "magnetic potential energy"? What on earth is this?

It's as important as the gravitational potential energy in analyzing the SMOT. Your failure to consider it is the precise reason you and Omnibus think the device produces excess energy. When you consider this term, you see that the device behaves in accordance with all known physical laws and it's obvious that it does *not* produce excess energy. Such failure to consider all the relevant issues is at the heart of most free energy schemes.

Consider gravitational potential energy. This is an object's potential energy due to the gravitational field of the earth. Defining the surface of the earth as our datum, an object has zero gravitational potential energy at the surface. At any location above the surface, the object has gravitational potential energy. Moving down and up is the same as moving toward and away from the earth. The greater the distance (the higher the object) the greater the gravitational potential energy.

Magnetic potential energy is exactly analogous to gravitational potential energy. It is an object's potential energy due to the magnetic field of another object, such as a permanent magnet. Defining our datum as the point where the object (ball) is in contact with the permanent magnet, the magnetic potential energy is zero when the ball is in contact with the magnet. At any distance from the magnet, the ball has magnetic potential energy. The greater the distance, the greater the magnetic potential energy. In short: moving toward and away from the earth decreases and increases an object's gravitational potential energy. Moving toward and away from a permanent magnet decreases and increases a steel ball's magnetic potential energy.

Quote
There is no energy expended allowing the ball to roll back to the start.

You are neglecting the magnetic potential energy. Note that because of the way the magnets are angled, the ball in the final position (Omnibus' "initial position") is closer to the magnets that at the starting position (Omnibus' "input"). This means the magnetic potential is lower than at the starting position. To get from the final position to the starting position, you need to raise the ball's magnetic potential energy back to it's starting value. It is this adverse potential gradient that prevents the ball from rolling back to the input by itself.

Contrary to Omnibus' claim, the starting and ending points of the process are *not* the same. You cannot ignore this issue without misleading yourself.

Look at the figure I've attached. On the vertical axis I plot gravitational potential energy. On the horizontal axis I plot magnetic potential energy. I also plot diagonal lines indicating the sum of the gravitational and magnetic potentials. Moving up and down on the graph is equivalent to moving further from and closer to the earth. Moving right and left on the graph is equivalent to moving further from and closer to the magnets. Moving along one of the diagonal lines is a lossless tradeoff between gravitational and magnetic potentials. ("Lossless" is unobtainable in the real world due to air resistance, hysteresis losses at the ball/ramp contact point, etc. It can be approached, but never reached or exceeded. So without any outside influence, any real world motion along one of the diagonal lines will actually trend slightly below the line as the second law of thermodynamics takes its cut of the energy.)

Point A indicates the starting point of the ball at the bottom of the lower end of the ramp (Omnibus' "input"). Point B indicates the top of the ramp. Point C indicates the final position of the ball, at the original elevation but under the raised end of the ramp (Omnibus' "initial position", which is really a misnomer because it's not where the ball starts out).

The ball rolls up the ramp because the magnetic force parallel to the ramp is greater than the component of gravitational force parallel to the ramp. The magnetic field does work on the ball to raise its gravitational potential. As the ball rolls up the ramp, its gravitational potential is rising, but its magnetic potential is falling (the magnets are angled so they're closer to the ball at the top of the ramp). When the ball rolls off the top end of the ramp, it falls because the vertical component of the gravitational force is greater than the vertical component of the magnetic force. As the ball falls, the gravitational field does work on it. In falling, the ball gets further from the magnets, so its magnetic potential increases. When the ball reaches the initial elevation, its gravitational potential is back to the level where it started. But since the ball in its final position is closer to the magnets than when it started out (again, note the magnets are angled), it is at a lower magnetic potential than when it started.

To get it to go again, you need to raise the ball's potential by picking it up and placing it at the "input". Since the two locations are at the same elevation, you are not increasing its gravitatonal potential. But you *are* increasing its magnetic potential because the "input" is further than the final position from the magnets.  Regardless of how much Omnibus disagrees, the ending point is at a lower combined gravitational/magnetic potential than the starting point.

Note that the SMOT could be arranged so that the ball falls completely away from the ramp and not just to its original elevation (say, off the edge of the table). This would raise the magnetic potental to a level higher than the starting point, but the gravitational potential would be significantly lower. To get the back to the input, you would need to raise its gravitational potential.

No matter what you do, the ball winds up at a lower combined potential than when it starts.

Quote
It is a matter of careful engineering. People (on Jlnlabs, I think) have connected two ramps together to get extra height, and therefore extra energy.

Refer to my graph: Points BB and CC indicate the states on a second ramp higher than the first. You can see that BB is indeed higher than B, but this is at the expense of even more magnetic potential energy. Along any real world path (such as A-B-C-BB-CC), no matter how convoluted, the combined gravitational/magnetic potential *always* decreases. (Note how the paths cut across the diagonal lines.) No matter how you arrange things, the ball will *always* wind up at a lower combined potential than when it started, and it will *always* require an outside influence (e.g. force from your hand) to raise it back to its starting potential so it can go again. This is exactly why nobody has ever succeeded in "close looping" these things.

Quote
The engineering problems are very fiddly and the speeds and positions of the components are crucial.

The "fiddliness" only determines how close points A and C are. In the real world, points A and C are always separate and distinct, and the combined gravitational/magnetic potential at point C is always less than at point A. As much as you and Omnibus would like to believe otherwise, points A and C are *not* the same. If they were and the ball had excess energy when arriving at the final position, it would be a "trivial engineering task" to arrange the device so the ball makes its way back to the input by itself. But, sadly, they are not the same and we're required to add energy to the system to get it to go again.

Quote
Suspend your disbelief, Berferd, unless you are scared of having your well ordered reality upset.

ROTFL! My "well ordered reality" is just fine. It's your "well ordered fantasy" that requires one to ignore important issues to create the impression that free energy is being created.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #98 on: March 21, 2006, 03:58:47 AM »
Many words, no substance:

Quote
Quote
At the expense of "magnetic potential energy"? What on earth is this?

It's as important as the gravitational potential energy in analyzing the SMOT. Your failure to consider it is the precise reason you and Omnibus think the device produces excess energy. When you consider this term, you see that the device behaves in accordance with all known physical laws and it's obvious that it does *not* produce excess energy. Such failure to consider all the relevant issues is at the heart of most free energy schemes.

Consider gravitational potential energy. This is an object's potential energy due to the gravitational field of the earth. Defining the surface of the earth as our datum, an object has zero gravitational potential energy at the surface. At any location above the surface, the object has gravitational potential energy. Moving down and up is the same as moving toward and away from the earth. The greater the distance (the higher the object) the greater the gravitational potential energy.

Magnetic potential energy is exactly analogous to gravitational potential energy. It is an object's potential energy due to the magnetic field of another object, such as a permanent magnet. Defining our datum as the point where the object (ball) is in contact with the permanent magnet, the magnetic potential energy is zero when the ball is in contact with the magnet. At any distance from the magnet, the ball has magnetic potential energy. The greater the distance, the greater the magnetic potential energy. In short: moving toward and away from the earth decreases and increases an object's gravitational potential energy. Moving toward and away from a permanent magnet decreases and increases a steel ball's magnetic potential energy.

I already answered this point. The above is taken into account in my analysis.

Quote
There is no energy expended allowing the ball to roll back to the start.

Quote
You are neglecting the magnetic potential energy. Note that because of the way the magnets are angled, the ball in the final position (Omnibus' "initial position") is closer to the magnets that at the starting position (Omnibus' "input").

Not so. To this day you couldn?t understand this. See my previous explanations. I?m not gonna repeat this over and over again because you don?t understand it.

Quote
This means the magnetic potential is lower than at the starting position. To get from the final position to the starting position, you need to raise the ball's magnetic potential energy back to it's starting value. It is this adverse potential gradient that prevents the ball from rolling back to the input by itself.

Not so. It is just the opposite. Furthermore, it is irrelevant in the final balance.

Quote
Contrary to Omnibus' claim, the starting and ending points of the process are *not* the same. You cannot ignore this issue without misleading yourself.

This is ridiculous. To this day you did not understand what we?re discussing. The cycle starts when the ball is at the initial position and ends when the ball is at that same initial position. I?ve told you this already at least five times. You don?t get it and I already doubt that you?ll ever get it (unless you?re deliberately confusing the issue to appear you have to say something).

Quote
Look at the figure I've attached. On the vertical axis I plot gravitational potential energy. On the horizontal axis I plot magnetic potential energy. I also plot diagonal lines indicating the sum of the gravitational and magnetic potentials. Moving up and down on the graph is equivalent to moving further from and closer to the earth. Moving right and left on the graph is equivalent to moving further from and closer to the magnets. Moving along one of the diagonal lines is a lossless tradeoff between gravitational and magnetic potentials. ("Lossless" is unobtainable in the real world due to air resistance, hysteresis losses at the ball/ramp contact point, etc. It can be approached, but never reached or exceeded. So without any outside influence, any real world motion along one of the diagonal lines will actually trend slightly below the line as the second law of thermodynamics takes its cut of the energy.)

Point A indicates the starting point of the ball at the bottom of the lower end of the ramp (Omnibus' "input"). Point B indicates the top of the ramp. Point C indicates the final position of the ball, at the original elevation but under the raised end of the ramp (Omnibus' "initial position", which is really a misnomer because it's not where the ball starts out).

The ball rolls up the ramp because the magnetic force parallel to the ramp is greater than the component of gravitational force parallel to the ramp. The magnetic field does work on the ball to raise its gravitational potential. As the ball rolls up the ramp, its gravitational potential is rising, but its magnetic potential is falling (the magnets are angled so they're closer to the ball at the top of the ramp). When the ball rolls off the top end of the ramp, it falls because the vertical component of the gravitational force is greater than the vertical component of the magnetic force. As the ball falls, the gravitational field does work on it. In falling, the ball gets further from the magnets, so its magnetic potential increases. When the ball reaches the initial elevation, its gravitational potential is back to the level where it started. But since the ball in its final position is closer to the magnets than when it started out (again, note the magnets are angled), it is at a lower magnetic potential than when it started.

To get it to go again, you need to raise the ball's potential by picking it up and placing it at the "input". Since the two locations are at the same elevation, you are not increasing its gravitatonal potential. But you *are* increasing its magnetic potential because the "input" is further than the final position from the magnets.  Regardless of how much Omnibus disagrees, the ending point is at a lower combined gravitational/magnetic potential than the starting point.

Note that the SMOT could be arranged so that the ball falls completely away from the ramp and not just to its original elevation (say, off the edge of the table). This would raise the magnetic potental to a level higher than the starting point, but the gravitational potential would be significantly lower. To get the back to the input, you would need to raise its gravitational potential.

No matter what you do, the ball winds up at a lower combined potential than when it starts.
 

This is a flawed explanation. The experiment (each cycle) starts and ends at point C and not the way you have described it. The way you have described it the ball doesn?t close the loop when it?s moving.

Besides, it is not true that in moving from point C (?initial position? -- which is under the SMOT) to point B (?input to the device?) the gravitational energy doesn?t change. Unlike what you?ve indicated, the ball gains potential energy because it is raised from point C to point A. Also. it is not true that the magnetic potential energy increases from point C to point A. Point A is closer to the magnet than point C, therefore, it is just the opposite to what you?ve written.

Quote
Suspend your disbelief, Berferd, unless you are scared of having your well ordered reality upset.

Quote
ROTFL! My "well ordered reality" is just fine. It's your "well ordered fantasy" that requires one to ignore important issues to create the impression that free energy is being created.

That?s nonsense. What your reality is is seen from your ?explanation?. It?s flawed.

Your explanation is flooded with problems. As a first step, correct the mentioned and other problems in your graph and, hopefully, you?ll understand why excess energy is produced (I?m not holding my breath, though).

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #98 on: March 21, 2006, 03:58:47 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline canam101

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 97
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #99 on: March 25, 2006, 02:31:45 PM »
Can anybody explain simply why he thinks the Sprain motor is overunity?

All he is doing is using an electro-magnet to counter the 'blocking' of the first magnet in his motor so that the rotor can get by it. Why would anybody think that this will result in overunity? You might as well give it a push with a stick.

The input/output measurements done so far involve such small amounts of energy that they aren't worth much.

I'd love to see the thing work, but if other such 'breakthroughs' are anything to go by, in four months, or whatever it is, when the big version of the motor is supposed to be demonstrated, there will be some reason that it can't be shown, and another dealine will be set, and that deadline will be missed, etc.

I don't know if Sprain is allowing people to invest in his motor, but I would not put one cent into it, going by what has been shown so far.

Offline lltfdaniel1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 679
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #100 on: March 25, 2006, 05:32:35 PM »
Adams, motor.(aint that Pulsed?)

i havent taken the time to look at this fully,

but, Overunity does exist , like with Good_Good(Truth) , evil_evil (lies)

Guys you must Ponder it, Analyze,

also read this, this guy had seen the universes mechanics,

and if you could remember me posting some of the Book of enoch on here, although i shouldnt, then if you did read, what this guy mellen thomas wrote, its mostly correct.

http://100777.com/spiritual/beings_having_a_physical_experience

,

you guys are basicly saying , - Oh thats rubbish how can that work? -

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #100 on: March 25, 2006, 05:32:35 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline berferd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #101 on: March 29, 2006, 01:47:59 AM »
Your explanation is flooded with problems. As a first step, correct the mentioned and other problems in your graph and, hopefully, you?ll understand why excess energy is produced (I?m not holding my breath, though).

You seem pretty determined to ignore the energy you're adding to the system when you pick up the ball from your "initial position" (Point C on my graph) and place it in your "input to the device" (Point A on my graph). 

You also seem to think that my graph is incorrect.  Please correct it.  Be sure to consider both the magnetic and gravitational potentials at each point in the cycle.

 

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #102 on: March 29, 2006, 01:53:18 AM »
I already pointed out some of the problems in your graph. Read what I wrote and think.

Offline berferd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #103 on: March 29, 2006, 02:01:53 AM »
I already pointed out some of the problems in your graph. Read what I wrote and think.

All your criticisms are nonsensical.  You really can't provide a description of the energy budgeting of the SMOT, can you?

If you insist my graph is wrong, correct it.  Don't just tell me it's wrong.  Don't just say that the magnets provide free energy.  Show the gravitational and magnetic potentials at all points in the cycle, and show me where I'm wrong.


Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #104 on: March 29, 2006, 02:11:48 AM »
I already showed you. Read it and think. I can't waste more time on this.

 

OneLink