Author Topic: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it. (Read 53219 times)

DarkLight · « **Reply #45 on:** March 18, 2006, 11:53:30 AM »

berferd, you said that there can not be a free energy, because this violates the conservation lows. That is not so. No low violation here. The free energy comes from orbital movement of the electrons and their magnetic momentum. Some examples:

Let we have a coil with flowing current in it. It will produce a magnetic field.
What will happen if we put in the coil a feromagnetic core? With same power input (U*I) we measure severel thousend times stronger magnetic field!

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/elemag.html#c5

If we want to achieve the same intensity without feromagnetic core we have to put in thousend times more energy in the coil!

From conservation lows we know that energy can't come from nothing. But in the case with feromagnetic core we put in the same input energy and the energy of magnetic field is growing up thousend times. This additional energy of the field has to come from somewhere. It is not an electrical energy, because the electriical energy that we put in is the same. Then it has to be the feromagnetic core that gives us this additional energy. And this amount of energy is not a few percents, it' s a thousands times more then energy we put in! If we use "mumetal" it is 20 000 times more energy !

berferd · « **Reply #46 on:** March 18, 2006, 02:39:46 PM »

Quote from: Omnibus on March 18, 2006, 04:01:27 AM

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

And re-depositing money into my bank account is not a requirement for withdrawing $100 from an ATM, as long as I already have $100 in my account to begin with. If that $100 withdrawl depletes my account, I must deposit $100 into my account before I can make another $100 withdrawl. (For some unknown reason, the ATM won't let me withdraw another $100 unless I first deposit $100.)

I can withdraw $100 over and over again, each time depleting my account, as many times as I wish, as long as I deposit $100 into my account before each withdrawl. (This requirment to deposit money into my account isn't really significant. I'm not really depositing money when I put money into my account - just focus on the withdrawls. I simply get a free $100 each time I make a withdrawl.)

No matter how many times I repeat the process, I wind up with $100 in my hand and $0 in my account. This "initial position" is exactly the same every time. It can be repeated as many times as I want.

There! Free money! The fact that I can go to the ATM and withdraw $100 is proof-positive of free money.

Your explanation of the SMOT is no less silly than this.

And the fact that nobody has shut the skeptics up by accomplishing the "trivial engineering task" of close-looping such a simple device (that purportedly creates free energy) so it keeps cycling by itself should tell you something. But obviously that goes way over your head.

Omnibus · « **Reply #47 on:** March 18, 2006, 03:33:28 PM »

Your example is the silly one.

Unlike what you have understood, SMOT works like this. I deposit $80 into my account, then the bank deposits into my account another $20 because the bank likes me. Then I withdraw $100 from the ATM. I have gotten a ?present? of $20. Do you understand it or you need more explanation?

Don?t try to confuse yourself again with irrelevant ?close-looping? or trying to find green cheese on the moon. Do as I do and you?ll get free $20 from the bank. You snooze, you lose.

That this whole business is way over your head is more than obvious. What can you do, not everyone is a winner.

berferd · « **Reply #48 on:** March 18, 2006, 04:31:47 PM »

Quote from: Omnibus on March 18, 2006, 03:33:28 PM

Your example is the silly one.

Unlike what you have understood, SMOT works like this. I deposit $80 into my account, then the bank deposits into my account another $20 because the bank likes me. Then I withdraw $100 from the ATM. I have gotten a ?present? of $20. Do you understand it or you need more explanation?

Going back to the SMOT: where does the excess energy (the equivalent of your bank's $20 deposit) come from?

Quote

Don?t try to confuse yourself again with irrelevant ?close-looping? or trying to find green cheese on the moon. Do as I do and you?ll get free $20 from the bank. You snooze, you lose.

Close-looping is anything *but* irrelevant. As with all supposed free energy devices, tt would be irrefutable proof that the device produces free energy. Until somebody succeeds in close-looping the device (*any* free energy device), all we have to go on is faith that the device produces free energy. While free energy believers accept these claims as articles of their faith, skeptics don't usually take things on faith. We like proof.

It's funny how free energy believers never do the "trivial engineering task" that would shut the skeptics up. Why is that?

Oh, that's right. You already know the device produces free energy, so that step isn't necessary. My bad.

Quote

That this whole business is way over your head is more than obvious. What can you do, not everyone is a winner.

ROTFL!

Omnibus · « **Reply #49 on:** March 18, 2006, 04:54:08 PM »

Quote

Quote
Your example is the silly one.

Unlike what you have understood, SMOT works like this. I deposit $80 into my account, then the bank deposits into my account another $20 because the bank likes me. Then I withdraw $100 from the ATM. I have gotten a ?present? of $20. Do you understand it or you need more explanation?

Going back to the SMOT: where does the excess energy (the equivalent of your bank's $20 deposit) come from?

The excess energy comes from the potential energy which the ball acquired spontaneously when it was pulled up the ramp by the magnetic field ? the ball at the top of the ramp has higher potential energy than its potential energy at the input of the device. I have paid nothing for that energy.

Quote

Quote
Don?t try to confuse yourself again with irrelevant ?close-looping? or trying to find green cheese on the moon. Do as I do and you?ll get free $20 from the bank. You snooze, you lose.

Close-looping is anything *but* irrelevant. As with all supposed free energy devices, tt would be irrefutable proof that the device produces free energy.

That?s ridiculous. If you sneeze at free $20 I don?t. This is a one time deal. One time, not continuous.

Quote

Until somebody succeeds in close-looping the device (*any* free energy device), all we have to go on is faith that the device produces free energy. While free energy believers accept these claims as articles of their faith, skeptics don't usually take things on faith. We like proof.

Not so. I got my free $20 and I?m happy. It?s free. You?d like to pass that opportunity ? your choice.

Quote

It's funny how free energy believers never do the "trivial engineering task" that would shut the skeptics up. Why is that?

Trivial engineering task has already been done for the periodic production of excess energy. It is called the SMOT. Greg Watson has done it first.

Quote

Oh, that's right. You already know the device produces free energy, so that step isn't necessary. My bad.

You really don?t get it. Don?t torture yourself, give it up. Not everyone is a winner.

lancaIV · « **Reply #50 on:** March 18, 2006, 07:22:54 PM »

After more than 500 years :

Gallilei /science
versus
Pope/In-quis-ation

Diskussion
or Disput

S
d L

Smith001 · « **Reply #51 on:** March 18, 2006, 07:44:38 PM »

Very entertaining discussion guys! I have three simple observations:

1. Bank accounts and how money is deposited, withdrawn or how interest is earned has nothing to do with energy.

2. Omnibus' quote (and belief) that "First, you should convince yourself that the SMOT produces periodically excess energy" is the basis for so many trivial claims to free energy we see today. If the so called inventers of these devices would be more skeptical about what they think they've discovered and actually did some real testing before showing a video of their 'overunity device' almost acheiving overunity, we'd have alot less clutter on this web site.

3. Smot is not overunity.

lancaIV · « **Reply #52 on:** March 18, 2006, 11:01:00 PM »

Let us do a step-by-step-evolution:

Bougon US1859764
Henry? ?FR817115

Bode? ? US3895245
Tamke DE3435068
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rust DE10103188? ? ?:? ? ? www.sigmaautomotive.com ;Electrocharger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rust DE3713965? ? ? ?:? ? ? www.Trinitymotors.net
de Buyst BE438189? ? ? ? ? www.geminielectricmotor.com
HoyerDE2529451
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eustachio EP0051711?: ? ? ?www.e- traction.com ;TheWheel
Zeissler DE19522794

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sincerely
? ? ? ? ? ? de Lanca

p.s.: let us take enough time to develop the appropriate technology for
? ? ? ?the appropriate need !

? ? ? ?There is ever the possibilty of C.O.P.-Overunity,
? ? ? ?there is never the possibility of efficience-Overunity !!!?
? ? ? ?Also ever guilty for each kind of "closed cycle-system"-concept !
? ? ? ?Carnot-Relativity ,ever contribution to the Maxwell/Boltzmann-sphere !

Omnibus · « **Reply #53 on:** March 19, 2006, 02:00:38 AM »

Quote

1. Bank accounts and how money is deposited, withdrawn or how interest is earned has nothing to do with energy.

Please notice, it is not I who proposed the analogy with the bank. Nevertheless, for those who don?t get it the bank example can serve as a good illustration.

Quote

2. Omnibus' quote (and belief) that "First, you should convince yourself that the SMOT produces periodically excess energy" is the basis for so many trivial claims to free energy we see today. If the so called inventers of these devices would be more skeptical about what they think they've discovered and actually did some real testing before showing a video of their 'overunity device' almost acheiving overunity, we'd have alot less clutter on this web site.

This is a sheer pronouncement on your side because it occurs to you that things are not the way they are. Science doesn?t work that way. Science works through facts and argumentation and not through expressing frivolous opinions such as yours.

Real testing has been done and production of excess energy has been unequivocally demonstrated in a SMOT device. Or you want to abolish science because it doesn?t fit your views?

[quite] 3. Smot is not overunity. [/quote]

This is your unsupported opinion only which doesn?t mean it reflects the truth just because you?re expressing it.

Your opinion reminds me of the opinions of a population living in a region not far from Sofia, Bulgaria, called ?Shops?. Shops are very nice people with a peculiar philosophy of their own, sometimes very stubborn. For instance, a Shop says

-- ? There?s nothing higher than Vitosha and nothing deeper that the Iskyr? (Vitosha and Iskyr are their mountain and river).

-- ?Why should I worry since my worry will soon pass??

-- ?I hate to think. When I think it?s like I?m wrestling a bear?.

and so on.

One day a Shop visits the zoo. Suddenly he finds himself in front of the giraffe. The Shop starts staring at the giraffe while the poor thing is chewing quietly on its fodder. The Shop keeps staring and staring until concluding finally: ?There is no such animal?.

This sounds pretty much like your conclusion ? a SMOT is right in front of your eyes, it produces periodically excess energy and you?re saying ?SMOT is not overunity?.

People like you want everything sensational. If you don?t find it sensational (while it may really be such) your conclusion is that it is a fake. In other words, you?re trying to impose your perception of ?sensational? as a criterion for the validity of a claim. That?s not science.

Omnibus · « **Reply #54 on:** March 19, 2006, 02:02:22 AM »

Quote

Let us do a step-by-step-evolution:

Bougon US1859764
Henry FR817115

Bode US3895245
Tamke DE3435068
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rust DE10103188 : www.sigmaautomotive.com ;Electrocharger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rust DE3713965 : www.Trinitymotors.net
de Buyst BE438189 www.geminielectricmotor.com
HoyerDE2529451
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eustachio EP0051711 : www.e- traction.com ;TheWheel
Zeissler DE19522794

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sincerely
de Lanca

p.s.: let us take enough time to develop the appropriate technology for
the appropriate need !

There is ever the possibilty of C.O.P.-Overunity,
there is never the possibility of efficience-Overunity !!!
Also ever guilty for each kind of "closed cycle-system"-concept !
Carnot-Relativity ,ever contribution to the Maxwell/Boltzmann-sphere !]

Please expalin. Not clear what you mean.

lancaIV · « **Reply #55 on:** March 19, 2006, 02:51:09 AM »

Independently affected by humans or software-automaticaly by machine there has to be an input,
a "stimulating effect" for expansion or compression,because of this action
the output effect will be ever calculated :output-input= under 1
(or under100%).
The listening of patents/publications and in comparison the trial of
commercial/market introducement shall only show what is known and
when there had been the first technical "coming out"!

Sincerely
? ? ? ? ? ? de Lanca

p.s.:I can have a C.O.P. of 10 ,the efficiency will be under 100%;
? ? ? I can have a C.O.P. of 1 Billion,the efficiency will be under 100 %;
? ? ? Technical the reach of C.O.P. 1 Billion is workable(cascade-configuration),
? ? ? this means a gain of (100000000000%-100%) is real,
? ? ? but mathematically we will ever stay in the output(=1)-input(=X)=under 1
? ? ? Neither Gallilei nor the Pope could change this status quo,
? ? ? this was,is and will ever be "the imperial status" of maths(Arithmetik) !

Omnibus · « **Reply #56 on:** March 19, 2006, 04:31:02 AM »

Quote

the output effect will be ever calculated :output-input= under 1
(or under100%).

Not so with the SMOT. The otput/input ratio with regard to the energy we spend and obtain in SMOT is greater than 1.

lancaIV · « **Reply #57 on:** March 19, 2006, 04:59:11 AM »

Your definition is the C.O.P.,not the efficiency !!!
Sometimes physics-maths" is difficult,seems unlogical:
you have to calculate from Max(=100%=output).-Min.(=input) for efficiency
you can calculate from Min(100%=input).-Max.(=output) for C.O.P.,
ever independant of solid,liquid,gas,plasma estate
of the work-medium/object !

We can ever get "energy gain",but we can not invent "new maths"!!!
Remember an old "phrase": GOTT ZAEHLT,Pythagoras

Sincerely
? ? ? ? ? ? de Lanca

Omnibus · « **Reply #58 on:** March 19, 2006, 05:05:57 AM »

Not clear what you mean by this:

Quote

Sometimes physics-maths" is difficult,seems unlogical:
you have to calculate from Max(=100%=output).-Min.(=input) for efficiency
you can calculate from Min(100%=input).-Max.(=output) for C.O.P.,
ever independant of solid,liquid,gas,plasma estate
of the work-medium/object !

We can ever get "energy gain",but we can not invent "new maths"!!!
Remember an old "phrase": GOTT ZAEHLT,Pythagoras

SMOT is an experimental device which demonstrates periodic production of excess energy. The number which you get for the output energy is greater than the number you get for the input energy What other math?

lancaIV · « **Reply #59 on:** March 19, 2006, 05:26:58 AM »

Is internal the SMOT-system none friction ?
Friction decrease the velocity as consequence the output-force !
You have to think from the TOTAL POWER=100%
and this is the stadium before the friction losts !

Sincerely
? ? ? ? ? ? de Lanca

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it. (Read 53219 times)

DarkLight

Free energy

berferd

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

Omnibus

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

berferd

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

Omnibus

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

lancaIV

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

Smith001

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

lancaIV

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

Omnibus

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

Omnibus

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

lancaIV

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

Omnibus

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

lancaIV

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

Omnibus

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.

lancaIV

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.