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 Posts: 897287
  • *Total Topics: 15811
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 15
  • *Total: 16

Author Topic: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.  (Read 46031 times)

Offline berferd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #105 on: March 29, 2006, 02:22:10 AM »
I already showed you. Read it and think. I can't waste more time on this.

No, you did not show me.  You told me I was wrong and told me to fix my graph.

I provided a graphical representation of the gravitational and magnetic potential energy budgeting of the SMOT through a complete cycle, and I showed that it is not overunity.  My statements are consistent with known physics, and consider all relevant issues.

You refuse to admit that you raise the ball's magnetic potential as you pick it up from the "initial position" and place it at the "input to the device".  You tell me I'm wrong, and you tell me to fix my graph.

Please, act like a scientist, and not like a religious zealot.  You maintain the SMOT is overunity.  SHOW ME.  Show me the correct gravitational and magnetic potential energy budgeting over a complete cycle, and show me where I'm wrong.


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 #106 on: March 29, 2006, 02:24:26 AM »
Yeas, I did.

You have already been shown where your errors are. Read that thread carefully again and think. Start with your graph. For instance, notice that gravitational potential energy changes when moving the ball from C (?initial position? ? which is under the SMOT) to B (?input to the device?), unlike what your graph shows.

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

One wonders how people like you making such blatant mistakes dare teach others.

Offline berferd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #107 on: March 29, 2006, 02:44:57 AM »
Yeas, I did.

You have already been shown where your errors are. Read that thread carefully again and think. Start with your graph. For instance, notice that gravitational potential energy changes when moving the ball from C (?initial position? ? which is under the SMOT) to B (?input to the device?), unlike what your graph shows.

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

One wonders how people like you making such blatant mistakes dare teach others.

You misread the graph.  The "input to the device is not "B".  The "input to the device" is "A", the top of the ramp is "B", and the point under the raised end of the ramp is "C" (what you're calling the "initial postion").  Please, reread the discussion I posted along with the graph.

When you pick up the ball from "C" and place it at "A", you are increasing the ball's magnetic potential, but you are *not* changing the ball's gravitational potential (the two points are at the same elevation).  You even agreed in a followup that the ball wouldn't cycle by itself the way I drew it.

If you maintain that my analysis is not correct, please provide an analysis that is.  Please provide a graph showing the gravitational and magnetic potential at each point in the cycle, and show me where the energy is coming from.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #107 on: March 29, 2006, 02:44:57 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #108 on: March 29, 2006, 02:57:32 AM »
This is what you wrote:

Quote
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).
 

Your graph, considering the above notation, is incorrect:

First, 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 A (?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. Point C (below the SMOT) and point A at the input of the SMOT are not at the same elevation. 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.

Cut this out. You don?t understand it and never will. It?s just wasting of bandwidth on your side.

Offline _GonZo_

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #109 on: March 29, 2006, 03:11:28 AM »
Omnibus here is this machine simplified, see atachement,

A is a strong magnet
e is a iron ball atracted by the magnet (oes up the ramp due atraction of the magnet...)

When the ball arrives to B it droops from in the hole and goes down again by the ram below due gravity and starts again...

Please expalin me why it works or why it does not work.

Have in mind that Berferd is trying very hardly to explain about a exactily a machine like this.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #109 on: March 29, 2006, 03:11:28 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7976
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #110 on: March 29, 2006, 03:11:50 AM »
Maybe he does not understand, that the steel ball is sucked in automatically at the start into the track ?!
It does not have to be pushed in ! I am currently at my PDA and can?t see the graphics...

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #111 on: March 29, 2006, 03:13:02 AM »
Don't see attachment ...

OK, now I see it ...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #111 on: March 29, 2006, 03:13:02 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #112 on: March 29, 2006, 03:16:37 AM »
_GonZo_, the machine in the graph you've shown is not what we're discussing. We're discussing a SMOT and what you've shown is not a SMOT. Please, go back in the discussion to acquaint yourself with the setup we are talking about.

Offline _GonZo_

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #113 on: March 29, 2006, 03:32:51 AM »
Belive it or not it is the same machine, but much more simple.

I have no idea what is a SMOT, but looking at this grafic I do not need to see how it is... this grafic correspond to a machine like the one I posted even if you think that no, I am sure Berfer will tell you that it is correct.

(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=815.0;attach=932;image)


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #113 on: March 29, 2006, 03:32:51 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline maxwellsdemon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #114 on: March 29, 2006, 03:56:22 AM »
Quote
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.
 

It would be, if the ball returned to the initial position. The problem is that the ball doesn't return to the initial position.

It starts "here" (before the ramp) and ends "there" (after the ramp.)

That it ends up at the same height is irrelevant, because you're not taking into account the magnetic field.
If you make a SMOT that ends at a higher point than the start, the magnetic drag at the end will not allow the
ball to escape the field and roll back to the input. It is sitting at the bottom of a potential energy pit.

The SMOT device has been around for 20 years and no one has made a continous looping version.
Closing the loop would be TRIVIAL to do if there were a net energy gain in the system.

The fact that no one has a perpetually cycling SMOT sitting on their desk now, after the total number of manhours
and heaps of money that have been poured into this little toy worldwide, strongly suggests to me that it is impossible.

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7976
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #115 on: March 29, 2006, 04:38:26 AM »
2 people had it already running in a loop, Greg Watson and Epitaxy, unfortunately he died in a car crash. Watson said, that it was too unreliable and now sell his new solar cubes. Only a very few guys in the world tried it until now and in my opinion this must be build very big and exact, so that the ramps are at lest 1 Meter long and every single magnet has to be made adjustable, otherwise it will have too much different field  changes..so it is not easy to build, if you have not much time and space and patience for it...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #115 on: March 29, 2006, 04:38:26 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline berferd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #116 on: March 29, 2006, 05:00:33 AM »
2 people had it already running in a loop, Greg Watson and Epitaxy, unfortunately he died in a car crash. Watson said, that it was too unreliable and now sell his new solar cubes. Only a very few guys in the world tried it until now and in my opinion this must be build very big and exact, so that the ramps are at lest 1 Meter long and every single magnet has to be made adjustable, otherwise it will have too much different field? changes..so it is not easy to build, if you have not much time and space and patience for it...

It's mighty strange that virtually every successful perpetual motion machine ever built is either lost after its inventor dies, or is abandoned just because it's too finnicky or too much trouble.


Offline berferd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #117 on: March 29, 2006, 05:30:57 AM »
Belive it or not it is the same machine, but much more simple.

Gonzo, for kicks I've uploaded a graph for a variation where the ball winds up at the starting magnetic potential but lower gravitational potential.

I'm really baffled how people can think these things make free energy.  If they're confused by something this simple, there's little hope.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #118 on: March 29, 2006, 08:47:24 AM »
Quote
Belive it or not it is the same machine, but much more simple.
 

No, it?s not. It?s similar but is not the same machine. Read the beginning of the thread carefully to see the difference.

Quote
I have no idea what is a SMOT, but looking at this grafic I do not need to see how it is... this grafic correspond to a machine like the one I posted even if you think that no, I am sure Berfer will tell you that it is correct.

No, I have said it several times already, the graphic doesn?t correspond to the machine we?re discussing (not the one you have posted but the machine we?re discussing).

I?ve posted this several times and I?m repeating it specially for you. Read it carefully so that I won?t be forced to continue repeating it:

Quote
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).
 

Your graph, considering the above notation, is incorrect:

First, 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 A (?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. Point C (below the SMOT) and point A at the input of the SMOT are not at the same elevation. 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.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #119 on: March 29, 2006, 08:47:55 AM »
Quote
It would be, if the ball returned to the initial position. The problem is that the ball doesn't return to the initial position.

On the contrary, in the experiment we?re discussing the ball returns to the initial position. I?m talking about the experiment we?re discussing and not about who knows what experiment you have in mind.

Before setting to discuss something you must first understand well what is being discussed and not impose some fantasies of yours that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Quote
It starts "here" (before the ramp) and ends "there" (after the ramp.)

That it ends up at the same height is irrelevant, because you're not taking into account the magnetic field.
If you make a SMOT that ends at a higher point than the start, the magnetic drag at the end will not allow the
ball to escape the field and roll back to the input. It is sitting at the bottom of a potential energy pit.
 

Not so. This is not what is being discussed. Please acquaint yourself first with the essence of the discussion and then post opinions.

Quote
The SMOT device has been around for 20 years and no one has made a continous looping version.
Closing the loop would be TRIVIAL to do if there were a net energy gain in the system.

The discussion at hand is not about continuous production of excess energy, therefore, invoking looping is irrelevant. What is being discussed is periodic production of excess energy.

It?s very annoying to have to answer irrelevant posts.

Quote
The fact that no one has a perpetually cycling SMOT sitting on their desk now, after the total number of manhours
and heaps of money that have been poured into this little toy worldwide, strongly suggests to me that it is impossible.

That?s nonsense. The discussion at hand is not about perpetually cycling SMOT. You may think that it is but it is not.

Read carefully the thread so far and acquaint yourself well with what is being discussed before posting frivolous posts.

 

OneLink