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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.  (Read 53026 times)

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #60 on: March 19, 2006, 05:56:31 AM »
Friction has nothing to do with the production of excess energy in SMOT. The excess energy produced is the difference between the potential energy at the output of the device and the potential energy at the input of the device. This difference is acieved spontaneously, by the magnetic field, without external energy input. The experimenter doesn't expend energy for the obtainment of the said difference.

Nastrand2000

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #61 on: March 19, 2006, 06:13:56 AM »
actually, the potential energy of the ball is less at the top of the ramp. Its gravitational potential has increased, yet its magnetic potential has decreased. The magnetic potential is expodentialy stronger then the gravitational potential in this partical case, but as the ball falls away its gravitational potential vs its magnetic potential is less then equall. giving is a c.o.p of less then 1.....this is why the ball will not roll around to its starting place.

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #62 on: March 19, 2006, 07:06:59 AM »
The energy spent by the experimenter to lift the ball from its initial position (see definition of ?initial position? in my previous posts) to the level where the input of the device is is exactly equal to the energy recovered when the ball is returned from the level where the input of the device is back to the initial position. In this way, that part of the loop now is taken care of and all the energy the experimenter has spent is fully recovered.

In addition, to close the overall loop, there is one more segment ? lifting of the ball up the ramp from the level where the input to the device is and then falling of the ball off the end of the ramp to the level where the input to the device is.

For the lifting of the ball up the ramp the experimenter spends no work. This lifting is spontaneous. Upon this lifting kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy are spontaneously imparted to the ball. Also, magnetic energy, which is exponentially stronger than gravitational energy, is decreased.

Now, when under the action of gravity the ball spontaneously falls off the top of the ramp to the level where the input is, the following happens:

1) The ball spontaneously restores the same greater magnetic potential it had when at the input to the device. Therefore, there was no gain or loss magnetic wise in this segment.

and in addition

2) The ball spontaneously produces excess energy due to the height difference it had acquired spontaneously when moving up the ramp (never mind the kinetic energy it also acquired).

Nastrand2000

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #63 on: March 19, 2006, 07:19:59 AM »
lets have the ball run up 10 consecutive ramps in a linear fashion...each ramp being slightly higher then it starting point....its should place the ball signifigantly higher then the starting point....then the ball can roll around to the starting point and start the process over defeating the frictional loss....this does not happen...i have created this scenario....the ball wont start again....dont get me wrong...i believe there is "free energy" out there....this just is is not the way to acheive it

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #64 on: March 19, 2006, 07:24:04 AM »
That's a second step. Before doing that, convince yourself that a single SMOT produces excess energy periodically.

Nastrand2000

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #65 on: March 19, 2006, 07:27:22 AM »
This periodical engergy you speak of happens because you place a ferromagnetic material within a known magnetic field....thereby increasing its magnetic potential...it loses this potential at the top of the ramp

Nastrand2000

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #66 on: March 19, 2006, 07:28:20 AM »
this should be in a different section....start a smot section to discuss this topic

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #67 on: March 19, 2006, 07:30:18 AM »
Quote
This periodical engergy you speak of happens because you place a ferromagnetic material within a known magnetic field....thereby increasing its magnetic potential...it loses this potential at the top of the ramp

... but then spontaneously recovers it when falling off the ramp under gravity. In addition, excess energy is produced due to the spontaneous imparting of gravitational potential energy which the ball releases when it falls off the ramp. I explained this more thoroughly in my previous text.

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #68 on: March 19, 2006, 07:31:35 AM »
I disagree, the problems of the magnetic motors are closely connected with SMOT. I should even say that it is the SMOT that keeps my attention on the subject of magnetic motors.

Nastrand2000

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #69 on: March 19, 2006, 07:32:39 AM »
If it spontainiously recovers this energy....then it should be able to start itself....which it doesnt

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #70 on: March 19, 2006, 07:35:02 AM »
The idea of Sprain's motor (which is the current topic) is also based on SMOT although lacking its most attractive part -- the sudden spontaneous interruption of the magnetic field action (this is why Sprain has to apply energy externally).

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #71 on: March 19, 2006, 07:37:07 AM »
Quote
If it spontainiously recovers this energy....then it should be able to start itself....which it doesnt

You don't know that. The fact that it hasn't been done so far doesn't mean it couldn't be done.

As I said, however, before getting into this second step, convince yourself first that a single SMOT is producing excess energy periodically.

Nastrand2000

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #72 on: March 19, 2006, 07:38:04 AM »
I agree....if the rotor was  allowed to drop over a vertical oriented magnetic gate then you would see smot oriented energy gain

Nastrand2000

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #73 on: March 19, 2006, 07:39:57 AM »
im not fighting agianst free energy...im trying to figure it out by building it...which i have done unsuccessfully

Nastrand2000

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #74 on: March 19, 2006, 07:41:35 AM »
Hostility wont help here....constructive thinking will solve this puzzle