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: 518989
  • *Total Topics: 15460
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 9
  • *Total: 12

Author Topic: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.  (Read 42364 times)

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« 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.

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 #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.

Offline _GonZo_

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« 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.


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...
« Last Edit: March 29, 2006, 11:37:18 AM by _GonZo_ »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #122 on: March 29, 2006, 10:10:54 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« 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.

Offline berferd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #124 on: March 29, 2006, 02:05:54 PM »
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.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #124 on: March 29, 2006, 02:05:54 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« 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.

Offline _GonZo_

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« 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.  :o
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.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #126 on: March 29, 2006, 05:02:30 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« 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.

Offline berferd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #128 on: March 30, 2006, 01:35:57 AM »
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.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #128 on: March 30, 2006, 01:35:57 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3638
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« 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

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« 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.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2006, 09:41:11 AM by Omnibus »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #130 on: March 30, 2006, 09:23:33 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline berferd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #131 on: March 31, 2006, 01:03:25 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.




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« 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.

Offline WalMartGreeter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« Reply #133 on: April 01, 2006, 12:27:23 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.



Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Pauls Device; a damn shame he regrets revealing it.
« 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.

 

OneLink