Author Topic: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it. (Read 53215 times)

Omnibus · « **Reply #120 on:** March 29, 2006, 08:48:19 AM »

Quote

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.

That isn?t true.

Wesley Snyder is very much alive and well and his machine isn?t lost or abandoned at all.

Neither is lost or abandoned the machine invented by Walter Torbay.

People who talk nonsense like you and badmouth the inventors are worse than scam artists.

Omnibus · « **Reply #121 on:** March 29, 2006, 08:48:58 AM »

Quote

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.

To this day you could not understand that the ball in the experiment we?re discussing ends up at the same gravitational as well as magnetic potential as when it started.

You will never understand that. Don?t torture yourself. Give it up and don?t waste bandwidth in the forum.

_GonZo_ · « **Reply #122 on:** March 29, 2006, 10:10:54 AM »

Omnibus:
Still not answered why that simple ramp device works or does not work.
Please study basics Newton fisics.
Your posts have no sense at all.
I can see that you do not understand nothing that we talk about.

You think for example that something that is turning or moving with no stop (perpetual motion) is a overunity device and that is an error.

Quote from: berferd on March 29, 2006, 05:30:57 AM

Quote from: _GonZo_ on March 29, 2006, 03:32:51 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.

Yes you are right Berferd, the difference is that the ramp should going down instead of up but the result is the same you know, but did not find a image of a device with the ramp going down to the magnet...
I did not wanted to post a wheel with the magnet down because then it will be to complicate for Omnibus brain as momentuns will be implied...

Omnibus · « **Reply #123 on:** March 29, 2006, 01:51:51 PM »

Quote

Still not answered why that simple ramp device works or does not work.
Please study basics Newton fisics.
Your posts have no sense at all.
I can see that you do not understand nothing that we talk about.

The device you have shown doesn?t work. However, this is not what present discussion is all about.

That you don?t understand not only the SMOT device we?re discussing but also what overunity is is confirmed by your following statement:

Quote

You think for example that something that is turning or moving with no stop (perpetual motion) is a overunity device and that is an error.

On the contrary. A device which is turning by itself, that is, a device producing energy, without energy being spent for its turning, is the ultimate overunity device ? a perpetuum mobile (perpetual motion machine).

Quote

Quote
Quote
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.

Yes you are right Berferd, the difference is that the ramp should going down instead of up but the result is the same you know, but did not find a image of a device with the ramp going down to the magnet...
I did not wanted to post a wheel with the magnet down because then it will be to complicate for Omnibus brain as momentuns will be implied...

No, that?s incorrect. In the device we?re discussing the ball starts and ends up at the same magnetic and gravitational potential ? the ball starts at point C (?initial position?) and ends up at point C (?initial position?). In the device we?re discussing the ball goes along a closed loop. One cycle in the device we?re discussing consists of a closed loop. You?d better understand that first before posting your replies because otherwise they will always be incorrect.

berferd · « **Reply #124 on:** March 29, 2006, 02:05:54 PM »

Quote from: Omnibus on March 29, 2006, 08:48:58 AM

Quote
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.

To this day you could not understand that the ball in the experiment we?re discussing ends up at the same gravitational as well as magnetic potential as when it started.

You will never understand that. Don?t torture yourself. Give it up and don?t waste bandwidth in the forum.

You're making unsubstantiated claims. Please show me a graphical representation of the gravitational and magnetic potential energy budgeting of the SMOT, and show me where the excess energy comes from.

The ball in the SMOT moss assuredly winds up at a lower potential than when it starts (but is raised to the starting potential when the operator picks it up and places it at the "input" again.

Stop your arm waving and prove your point. I've proven mine, so prove yours.

Omnibus · « **Reply #125 on:** March 29, 2006, 02:18:51 PM »

Quote

You're making unsubstantiated claims. Please show me a graphical representation of the gravitational and magnetic potential energy budgeting of the SMOT, and show me where the excess energy comes from.

I already did that on several occasions in this thread. Go back and read what I explained. I cannot post the same thing over and over again just because you don?t understand it. It will turn into a perpetual discussion if I?d do that which is useless (unlike a perpetual motion machine which is not).

Quote

The ball in the SMOT moss assuredly winds up at a lower potential than when it starts (but is raised to the starting potential when the operator picks it up and places it at the "input" again.

As I said, in the device we?re discussing the ball starts and ends up at the same magnetic and gravitational potential ? the ball starts at point C (?initial position?) and ends up at point C (?initial position?). In the device we?re discussing the ball goes along a closed loop. One cycle in the device we?re discussing consists of a closed loop. Therefore, most assuredly, the ball in the device under discussion here winds up at exactly the same potential as its potential when it starts.

Quote

Stop your arm waving and prove your point. I've proven mine, so prove yours.

No, you have not proven your point. You think you have but you haven?t.

_GonZo_ · « **Reply #126 on:** March 29, 2006, 05:02:30 PM »

Quote

On the contrary. A device which is turning by itself, that is, a device producing energy, without energy being spent for its turning, is the ultimate overunity device ? a perpetuum mobile (perpetual motion machine).

An elecron turning and vibrating around the nucleous never stops (perpetual motion) and it is not given out any enegy and it is not taking any energy to turn.
A satelite turning around the earth never stops (perpetual motion) and it is not given out any enegy and it is not taking any energy to turn.
The earth turning around the earth never stops (perpetual motion) and it is not given out any enegy and it is not taking any energy to turn.
Etc.

Almost all of the devices posted in this forum if acelerated by hand and then realesed, will turn for ever by itself and never stop. And they will not need any energy to keep turning and they will not give out any energy, they just will keep theyr momentum.

But there is friction in the earth so they stop

That is the newton law of conservation of the momentun that aparently you have no idea what it is...

Every post you do are just supositions, your "demostrations" are not based on observation or on theory or on calculations, they are just supositions...
Why I say this:
I have not seen any deviced constructed by you.
I have not seen any theory or calculartions made by you on any post.
Just only supositios like: if that were and if and if and if... man, phisiscs does not work that way, you have to write down the formulas, you have to do grafs, you have to experiment. To do so you need to know the laws, the formulas, the theorya, etc... and you do not know them, so stop talking about things that you do not know and dont understand.

Just listen, observe and learn.

Omnibus · « **Reply #127 on:** March 29, 2006, 05:22:43 PM »

Quote

An elecron turning and vibrating around the nucleous never stops (perpetual motion) and it is not given out any enegy and it is not taking any energy to turn.

Mechanical turning of an electron around the nucleus is a notion from the high school textbooks. This is not the current professional view of the behavior of the electron.

Quote

A satelite turning around the earth never stops (perpetual motion) and it is not given out any enegy and it is not taking any energy to turn. The earth turning around the earth never stops (perpetual motion) and it is not given out any enegy and it is not taking any energy to turn.
Etc.

This is a wrong analogy. You figure it out why.

Quote

Almost all of the devices posted in this forum if acelerated by hand and then realesed, will turn for ever by itself and never stop. And they will not need any energy to keep turning and they will not give out any energy, they just will keep theyr momentum. Shocked
But there is friction in the earth so they stop

Not so. Snyder?s and Torbay?s devices will not stop turning because there is friction. And, yes, they give out energy.

Quote

That is the newton law of conservation of the momentun that aparently you have no idea what it is...

Newton?s law of conservation of momentum is mentioned here out of context.

Quote

Every post you do are just supositions, your "demostrations" are not based on observation or on theory or on calculations, they are just supositions...

Not so, Snyder?s and Torbay?s demonstrations are not suppositions but actual experiments.

Quote

Why I say this:
I have not seen any deviced constructed by you.
I have not seen any theory or calculartions made by you on any post.
Just only supositios like: if that were and if and if and if... man, phisiscs does not work that way, you have to write down the formulas, you have to do grafs, you have to experiment. To do so you need to know the laws, the formulas, the theorya, etc... and you do not know them, so stop talking about things that you do not know and dont understand.

Just listen, observe and learn.

Obviously, you?re not an accomplished scientist. If you were you would know that you don?t need to have done every experiment yourself so that you can draw theoretical conclusions. Besides, quality theoretical conclusions in physics can be drawn also without formuli. Math is only a helping hand in physics, to make life easier. Physics makes math not vice versa.

See, you don?t know these things probably because you haven?t been engaged in serious research, publishing in peer-reviewed journals etc. The way you present yourself in this discussion is of a person with limited credentials in science.

berferd · « **Reply #128 on:** March 30, 2006, 01:35:57 AM »

Quote from: Omnibus on March 29, 2006, 02:18:51 PM

As I said, in the device we?re discussing the ball starts and ends up at the same magnetic and gravitational potential ? the ball starts at point C (?initial position?) and ends up at point C (?initial position?). In the device we?re discussing the ball goes along a closed loop. One cycle in the device we?re discussing consists of a closed loop. Therefore, most assuredly, the ball in the device under discussion here winds up at exactly the same potential as its potential when it starts.

You say the ball starts at point C and ends at point C. I agree, both the gravitational and magnetic potentials are unchanged in going from point C to point C.

But, notice that to get the thing started you need to pick up the ball and place it at point A. In doing this you are raising the ball's combined gravitational/magnetic potential. You are addiing energy to the system. This energy comes back out of the system as the ball moves to point B then to point C.

You say that all the energy you add to the system in doing this is returned, and in addition you get a "present" of some excess energy.

All I am asking is that you illustrate where that excess energy is coming from.

I have provided two graphical representations of the SMOT showing the gravitational and magnetic potential energy budgeting through the entire cycle, and I have shown that the operator adds energy to the system in moving the ball from the "initial position" (C) to the "input to the device" (A). You take issue with this. Please provide what you believe to be the correct energy budgeting through the entire cycle and show where excess energy is coming from.

Don't just tell me I'm wrong. Show me.

lancaIV · « **Reply #129 on:** March 30, 2006, 01:45:00 AM »

More interesting as the SMOT(-Watson/Naudin experiment) is the
Naudin "Push and Pull" experiment and the result
and the step-for-step potentials !
(Greater "SMOT" version:butlerlabs)

Sincerely
de Lanca

Omnibus · « **Reply #130 on:** March 30, 2006, 09:23:33 AM »

Quote

But, notice that to get the thing started you need to pick up the ball and place it at point A. In doing this you are raising the ball's combined gravitational/magnetic potential. You are adding energy to the system. This energy comes back out of the system as the ball moves to point B then to point C.

Only half true. Indeed, in moving the ball from point C to point A you?re raising its gravitational potential (this means you have to correct your graph ? see attachment). However, in doing so you?re decreasing its magnetic potential ? you?re getting the ball closer to the magnet. Point A is closer to the magnet than C.

Quote

You say that all the energy you add to the system in doing this is returned, and in addition you get a "present" of some excess energy.

All I am asking is that you illustrate where that excess energy is coming from.

Now that you?ve finally agreed that the cycle starts and ends at the same point C (closed loop) which has one and the same gravitational and magnetic potential you should further understand the following, which I already said several times but will repeat now once again:

Because the ball moves along a closed loop in the conservative magnetic field despite the fact that energy is gained along the first part of the loop C (?initial position?) ? B (?top of ramp?), this energy is lost along the second part of the loop B (?top of ramp?) ? C (?initial position?). Therefore, there is no net energy along the closed loop in the conservative magnetic field.

Not so with the closed loop in the gravitational field. In the gravitational field you do work only to transfer the ball along part of the first half of the closed loop ? from C (?initial position?) to A (?input to the device?). However, for the other part of the first half of the loop, namely, from A (?input to the device?) to B (?top of ramp?) you do no work. Curiously, however, when the ball falls spontaneously along the second half of the loop, namely, from B (?top of ramp?) back to C (?initial position?) the ball recovers all the energy spent to have it raised along the entire first half of the loop, namely from C to B. Therefore, the ball recovers more than you have spent ? recall, you?ve spent energy only along C-A but the first half also has section A-B for which you haven?t spent energy to move the ball along. This part of the energy not spent by you, however, is also recovered along the reverse, second part of the loop B-C. This is the excess energy which the SMOT produces.

Quote

I have provided two graphical representations of the SMOT showing the gravitational and magnetic potential energy budgeting through the entire cycle, and I have shown that the operator adds energy to the system in moving the ball from the "initial position" (C) to the "input to the device" (A). You take issue with this. Please provide what you believe to be the correct energy budgeting through the entire cycle and show where excess energy is coming from.

Don't just tell me I'm wrong. Show me.

As I already explained, you graph (see attachment) is wrong and should not be referred to when doing the analysis. As far as the energy balance goes, I have explained it already many times, the last time in this post (see above). The energy balance indicates that the SMOT produces excess energy periodically.

berferd · « **Reply #131 on:** March 31, 2006, 01:03:25 AM »

Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2006, 09:23:33 AM

As I already explained, you graph (see attachment) is wrong and should not be referred to when doing the analysis. As far as the energy balance goes, I have explained it already many times, the last time in this post (see above). The energy balance indicates that the SMOT produces excess energy periodically.

Again, don't just tell me I'm wrong, show me.

You should have no trouble putting your description of the "correct" energy budgeting of the SMOT into graphical terms.

Please provide a corrected graph. Please show where the excess energy is coming from.

You like to ignore the motion through the magnetic potential field when it's convenient. Putting your description in graphical terms will prevent you from ignoring it.

Omnibus · « **Reply #132 on:** March 31, 2006, 01:14:16 AM »

Quote

You like to ignore the motion through the magnetic potential field when it's convenient.

This is ridiculous. Read what I've explained and stop demonstrating your incompetence. Enough is enough.

WalMartGreeter · « **Reply #133 on:** April 01, 2006, 12:27:23 AM »

Quote from: berferd on March 31, 2006, 01:03:25 AM

Please provide a corrected graph.? Please show where the excess energy is coming from.

You like to ignore the motion through the magnetic potential field when it's convenient.? Putting your description in graphical terms will prevent you from ignoring it.

Berferd, give it up. You might as well be trying to teach a pig to fly. I agree it would be interesting to see Omnibus's version, but it's pretty obvious he can't produce one and you're wasting your time. He has it in his head that the SMOT produces energy, and nothing will convince him otherwise. It was entertaining to see you try to get through to him, but it's time to stop.

By the way, thanks for the explanations and graphs. They make it pretty clear. But again, please, give it up. Some people are beyond help.

Omnibus · « **Reply #134 on:** April 01, 2006, 12:37:46 AM »

Quote

Berferd, give it up. You might as well be trying to teach a pig to fly. I agree it would be interesting to see Omnibus's version, but it's pretty obvious he can't produce one and you're wasting your time. He has it in his head that the SMOT produces energy, and nothing will convince him otherwise. It was entertaining to see you try to get through to him, but it's time to stop.

By the way, thanks for the explanations and graphs. They make it pretty clear. But again, please, give it up. Some people are beyond help.

Bereferd should give it up for reasons other than you indicate. Bereferd should give it up because he is incompetent. Anyone who cares can look back at the discussion and convince himself in that. It is embarrassing to read the incompetent rants of Bereferd.

You?re thanking him for the graphs but in vain. The graphs Bereferd shows are incorrect and I have explained why at length. You don?t add anything to the discussion either. Just some kind of empty support based on no arguments. Some people, such as you and Bereferd, are beyond help.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it. (Read 53215 times)

Omnibus

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

Omnibus

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

_GonZo_

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.

_GonZo_

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.

lancaIV

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.

WalMartGreeter

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

Omnibus

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