Author Topic: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it. (Read 53223 times)

Omnibus · « **Reply #75 on:** March 19, 2006, 07:54:25 AM »

Quote

im not fighting agianst free energy...im trying to figure it out by building it...which i have done unsuccessfully

That's why I'm saying, convince yourself first that single SMOT does the job. If you have built a single SMOT and it works then you have been successful in periodic production of excess energy.

berferd · « **Reply #76 on:** March 19, 2006, 01:19:15 PM »

Quote from: Omnibus 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.

Achieved "spontaneously" as long as you ignore the influence of the operator each time he picks the ball up from the final position and places it at the input.

Quote

The experimenter doesn't expend energy for the obtainment of the said difference.

This is an article of faith to you, isn't it?

berferd · « **Reply #77 on:** March 19, 2006, 01:43:26 PM »

Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2006, 05:05:57 AM

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?

What numbers? You have posted no numbers. All we've seen are your empty assertions that you get energy out without putting energy in.

Let's see a full "first law" analysis of this system accounting for gravitational potential energy, magnetic potential energy, and kinetic energy at each step in the process. If you are careful, you will see that the ball winds up at a lower potential (combined gravitational/magnetic) than where it starts, and that the operator is raising the ball's potential by removing it from the final position and placing it at the input to start another cycle.

Your repeated statement "First you must convince yourself that the SMOT produces excess energy." is very typical of a cult mentality. The indoctrinee must accept certain assertions as true before any further discussion can take place. Sorry, science doesn't work that way.

So, please post a full first law analysis accounting for gravitational potential energy, magnetic potential energy, and kinetic energy at each step in the process.

Empty assertions don't cut it -- especially when they violate physical laws. Let's see your analysis.

Omnibus · « **Reply #78 on:** March 19, 2006, 02:34:54 PM »

Quote

Quote
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.

Achieved "spontaneously" as long as you ignore the influence of the operator each time he picks the ball up from the final position and places it at the input.

Not at all. The work done by the operator is fully compensated when the ball falls back to the initial position.

Quote

Quote
The experimenter doesn't expend energy for the obtainment of the said difference.

This is an article of faith to you, isn't it?

Not so. This is a point which you don?t understand. Don?t accuse others for your lack of understanding.

Quote

Quote
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?

What numbers? You have posted no numbers. All we've seen are your empty assertions that you get energy out without putting energy in.

Numbers to that matter exist. See here http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm

The person whom I replied to (lancaIV) didn?t post numbers although he was mentioning numbers. What numbers? He posted no numbers. All we?ve seen are his empty assertions about numbers.

Quote

Let's see a full "first law" analysis of this system accounting for gravitational potential energy, magnetic potential energy, and kinetic energy at each step in the process. If you are careful, you will see that the ball winds up at a lower potential (combined gravitational/magnetic) than where it starts, and that the operator is raising the ball's potential by removing it from the final position and placing it at the input to start another cycle.

The ball ends up exactly at the same position where it started. The combined gravitational-magnetic potential at the end is exactly the same as at the beginning. You don?t need numbers to figure that out. A ball at one and the same position (at the beginning and at the end) cannot have two different potentials. Your requirement to give numbers to that effect only speaks about your confusion.

Numbers play a role before that ? when along the loop the ball covers a section of it spontaneously, gaining spontaneously gravitational potential energy and then spontaneously releasing it.

You don?t get this and never will. Give it up. Don?t torture yourself.

Quote

Your repeated statement "First you must convince yourself that the SMOT produces excess energy." is very typical of a cult mentality. The indoctrinee must accept certain assertions as true before any further discussion can take place. Sorry, science doesn't work that way.

So, please post a full first law analysis accounting for gravitational potential energy, magnetic potential energy, and kinetic energy at each step in the process.

Empty assertions don't cut it -- especially when they violate physical laws. Let's see your analysis.

This is nonsense which needn?t be answered. See explanation above.

Paul-R · « **Reply #79 on:** March 19, 2006, 03:49:18 PM »

The SMOT ball gains potential energy, m x g x h. It is as
simple as that, Berferd.

With reference to the Paul Sprain motor, the
interesting point is why Yasunori Takahashi, the father
of VCRs with many patents behind him, did not patent his device.
I think it is because his view was that there was no real
"Inventive Step" between Minato's patent and his motor. It
was not worth the risk and cost.

The US office granted Paul's patent. Why they did not
quote Minato is odd. But they are sloppy people. The EPO
has failed to move to a grant as yet, and that is significant.

berferd · « **Reply #80 on:** March 19, 2006, 05:15:27 PM »

Quote from: Paul-R on March 19, 2006, 03:49:18 PM

The SMOT ball gains potential energy, m x g x h. It is as
simple as that, Berferd.

But it gains gravitational potential energy at the expense of magnetic potential energy. This is completely ignored by the believers, and is why the operator must pick up the ball and place it at the input to make it go again.

Yes, the ball is at a higher gravitational potential at the top of the ramp, and it goes back to the initial gravitational potential after it falls. But it's at a lower magnetic potential than when it started. That is why it only runs once. The ball "goes downhill" in the combined gravitational/potential well regardless of whether it's going up the ramp or falling off the end. And the operator, by picking up the ball and placing it at the input, provides the energy to "lift up" the ball to the higher starting potential so it can go again.

You can't ignore the magnetic potential energy. The universe doesn't, and that's why the device only runs once before it stops.

FredWalter · « **Reply #81 on:** March 19, 2006, 08:29:13 PM »

Quote from: lancaIV on March 18, 2006, 11:01:00 PM

Rust DE10103188? ? ?:? ? ? www.sigmaautomotive.com ;Electrocharger
Rust DE3713965? ? ? ?:? ? ? www.Trinitymotors.net
de Buyst BE438189? ? ? ? ? www.geminielectricmotor.com
Eustachio EP0051711?: ? ? ?www.e-traction.com

You have a habit of posting interesting stuff, that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

While the above are examples of cool new technology, none of them involve overunity.

lancaIV · « **Reply #82 on:** March 19, 2006, 09:18:04 PM »

Hey OMNIBUS,
when did I defined that friction shall have impact of excess energy?
Friction is resistance ergo ever a lost !

The Greg Watson SMOT variation based by Emil Hartmann "ramp" work(US4215330) and also to recommend Daniel Baker(US4074153)
will give through the combination of the different force kinds/vectors and the
"free"permanent magnetic force an calculated and physical measure-able
gain/positive difference result between output-input .

But there are also "excess gain"-machines like heatpump,hydraulik ram pump,
compressed air motors(Robert Neal),
but the efficiency maths will ever be (1-X)/1=ever under 1 !!!

You can construct a plane with a fuelless motor,
you can construct a fuel-free car-engine,
you can construct a fuel-free city-energy-infastructure,
but,excuse me, (1-X)/1=ever under 1,
"Fiat lux !"=Impuls(=X) and not an italian car !!!

Sincerely
de Lanca

Omnibus · « **Reply #83 on:** March 19, 2006, 09:42:36 PM »

Quote

Quote
The SMOT ball gains potential energy, m x g x h. It is as
simple as that, Berferd.

But it gains gravitational potential energy at the expense of magnetic potential energy. This is completely ignored by the believers, and is why the operator must pick up the ball and place it at the input to make it go again.

You never understood that the energy the operator spends to pick up the ball and place it at the input is fully compensated when the ball returns to the initial position. In addition to this energy (which I said is compensated) the operator gets an additional portion due to the spontaneous lifting of the ball up the ramp.

Quote

Yes, the ball is at a higher gravitational potential at the top of the ramp, and it goes back to the initial gravitational potential after it falls. But it's at a lower magnetic potential than when it started.

You never understood that the ball is not at a lower magnetic potential at the initial position after it falls than the magnetic potential it was at when it started from the initial position. At the initial position the ball is always at one and the same magnetic potential be it at the beginning or at the end of a cycle.

One and the same spatial position can only have one value of the magnetic potential at all times, not two.

Quote

That is why it only runs once.

No, that is not why it only runs once. It runs once because of the constructional characteristics of the device. The device is made for the ball to run once.

Quote

The ball "goes downhill" in the combined gravitational/potential well regardless of whether it's going up the ramp or falling off the end. And the operator, by picking up the ball and placing it at the input, provides the energy to "lift up" the ball to the higher starting potential so it can go again.

You can't ignore the magnetic potential energy. The universe doesn't, and that's why the device only runs once before it stops.

No, the magnetic potential energy is not ignored in the analysis.

Think it this way. The closed loop which the ball goes along consists of two parts:

First part ? the ball is lifted from its initial position (somewhere under the SMOT) to the top of the ramp.

Second part ? the ball falls off the top of the ramp to its initial position.

At that, the net work due to the magnetic field is zero. The net work due to the gravity, however, is not zero ? in the above-mentioned first part there is a section (from the input of the device to the top of the ramp) where the experimenter doesn?t spend work and yet a gravitational potential energy of the ball, corresponding to the level at the top of the ramp, is achieved. Now comes the interesting part ? the above-mentioned second part, however. recovers the gravitational entire potential energy (from the top of the ramp to the initial position). Obviously, part of that recovered energy is free. This is the energy that doesn?t compensate any energy spent by the experimenter.

Omnibus · « **Reply #84 on:** March 19, 2006, 09:48:14 PM »

de Lanca, your explanation doesn?t apply to the SMOT. Please, see why in my reply to berferd.

lancaIV · « **Reply #85 on:** March 19, 2006, 10:34:49 PM »

To FREDWALTER:
The question is: has a post to be topic related when there are inside controversial views about the topic object or object-related comparisons ?

The Electrocharger (Sigmaautomotive) is the only not direct overunity-related
technology,
but indirectly because of the same Inventor Peter Rust,
and 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

Sincerely
de Lanca

Nastrand2000 · « **Reply #86 on:** March 19, 2006, 10:50:33 PM »

With regaurd to the SMOT... when the ball is placed at the intial position, its magnetic potential is higher. As the ball travels up the ramp, its magnetic potential lowers. If its magnetic potential were the same at all positions, the ball would not move.

Paul-R · « **Reply #87 on:** March 19, 2006, 11:02:34 PM »

Quote from: berferd on March 19, 2006, 05:15:27 PM

Quote from: Paul-R on March 19, 2006, 03:49:18 PM
The SMOT ball gains potential energy, m x g x h. It is as
simple as that, Berferd.

But it gains gravitational potential energy at the expense of magnetic potential energy.?

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

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

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

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

Omnibus · « **Reply #88 on:** March 19, 2006, 11:21:20 PM »

Quote

With regaurd to the SMOT... when the ball is placed at the intial position, its magnetic potential is higher. As the ball travels up the ramp, its magnetic potential lowers. If its magnetic potential were the same at all positions, the ball would not move.

Correct.

This doesn?t go against the production of excess energy by the SMOT (read my explanation in the previous posts).

DarkLight · « **Reply #89 on:** March 20, 2006, 12:08:09 AM »

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 with constat value and direction, we have a force with constant value and direction wich 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.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it. (Read 53223 times)

Omnibus

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

berferd

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.

Paul-R

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

berferd

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

FredWalter

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.

Nastrand2000

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

Paul-R

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

Omnibus

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

DarkLight

Re: Pauls Device - principle and problems