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

Custom Search

#### RunningBare

• Hero Member
• Posts: 809
« Reply #45 on: January 25, 2008, 05:42:31 PM »
Come on omni, shows us yours you big hunk of stuff,..... lets see your replication of the whipmag.

#### Low-Q

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2847
« Reply #46 on: January 25, 2008, 06:49:21 PM »
The equations already posted categorically prove violation of CoE in SMOT.

If CoE is to be obeyed then only the amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) of the entire amount (mgh1 + Mb) at B will transform into other energies upon the return of the ball from B to A. Amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) is the amount of energy imparted to the ball..

In SMOT, however, the entire amount of energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) which is greater than the amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) imparted to the ball is transformed into other energies upon the return of the ball at A. This is in clear violation of CoE.
The following is common knowledge, and basic physics.

As I have mentioned before: It takes no energy to move an object angular to a magnetic field and angular to gravity. Compare, and add up the angles and forces of both gravity and magnetism during the whole operation A-B-C-A, and you'll see that there is no extra energy applied to the ball. The ball must defy gravity and/or magnetic force in the loop A-B-C-A to gain energy, but this far there is no proof of such.

The ball would not be able to determine which way it would travel if point B was at the correct position. Point B in your calculations is not at the correct place, but a little bit too close the SMOT - where magnetism is more influed on the ball than the gravity is. The extra energy gained in the ball from B - C is therefor allready applied when the hand did place the ball at point B.
The ball must be placed where gravity and magnetic force cancels out. As I said: Point B is not at the correct place in yout calculations.

IMHO

Cheers!

#### Omnibus

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5330
« Reply #47 on: January 25, 2008, 09:39:41 PM »
The equations already posted categorically prove violation of CoE in SMOT.

If CoE is to be obeyed then only the amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) of the entire amount (mgh1 + Mb) at B will transform into other energies upon the return of the ball from B to A. Amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) is the amount of energy imparted to the ball..

In SMOT, however, the entire amount of energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) which is greater than the amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) imparted to the ball is transformed into other energies upon the return of the ball at A. This is in clear violation of CoE.
The following is common knowledge, and basic physics.

As I have mentioned before: It takes no energy to move an object angular to a magnetic field and angular to gravity. Compare, and add up the angles and forces of both gravity and magnetism during the whole operation A-B-C-A, and you'll see that there is no extra energy applied to the ball. The ball must defy gravity and/or magnetic force in the loop A-B-C-A to gain energy, but this far there is no proof of such.

The ball would not be able to determine which way it would travel if point B was at the correct position. Point B in your calculations is not at the correct place, but a little bit too close the SMOT - where magnetism is more influed on the ball than the gravity is. The extra energy gained in the ball from B - C is therefor allready applied when the hand did place the ball at point B.
The ball must be placed where gravity and magnetic force cancels out. As I said: Point B is not at the correct place in yout calculations.

IMHO

Cheers!
Like I've told you many times regarding that "argument", it's nonsense.

#### Low-Q

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2847
« Reply #48 on: January 26, 2008, 12:40:51 AM »
Your calcs is correct, but are based on wrong conditions.

#### Omnibus

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5330
« Reply #49 on: January 26, 2008, 12:44:51 AM »
Your calcs is correct, but are based on wrong conditions.
Never mind. Don't bother. You have no clue.

#### psychopath

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 62
« Reply #50 on: January 26, 2008, 03:33:21 AM »
I was just wondering, could anyone give proof why the smot doesn't work? Omnibus has offered proof why it does work, but where is the proof why it doesn't work? A one line sentence like "It'll never work" is not proof.

I've seen heaps of proof why gravity wheels don't work, and other simple magnet track motors, but I have yet to see one for the smot.

ps I've mostly seen repetitions of the wikipedia explanation why it shouldn't work, but that isn't proof.

#### RunningBare

• Hero Member
• Posts: 809
« Reply #51 on: January 26, 2008, 03:52:44 AM »
I was just wondering, could anyone give proof why the smot doesn't work? Omnibus has offered proof why it does work, but where is the proof why it doesn't work? A one line sentence like "It'll never work" is not proof.

I've seen heaps of proof why gravity wheels don't work, and other simple magnet track motors, but I have yet to see one for the smot.

ps I've mostly seen repetitions of the wikipedia explanation why it shouldn't work, but that isn't proof.

Over 20 years since the first SMOT and still no free energy from it?, I know I know, its an on going engineering problem (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/cool.gif)

#### psychopath

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 62
« Reply #52 on: January 26, 2008, 06:00:49 AM »
I was just wondering, could anyone give proof why the smot doesn't work? Omnibus has offered proof why it does work, but where is the proof why it doesn't work? A one line sentence like "It'll never work" is not proof.

I've seen heaps of proof why gravity wheels don't work, and other simple magnet track motors, but I have yet to see one for the smot.

ps I've mostly seen repetitions of the wikipedia explanation why it shouldn't work, but that isn't proof.

Over 20 years since the first SMOT and still no free energy from it?, I know I know, its an on going engineering problem (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/cool.gif)

What? Guess what, people were trying to fly for hundreds of years, and for hundreds of years it was "impossible". That's not a logical argument.

If you want to say that smots don't work, then provide proof. I am not saying that if you don't provide proof that the smot works, I'm saying that without proof that it doesn't work, you can't say it doesn't work.

#### Omnibus

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5330
« Reply #53 on: January 26, 2008, 06:29:38 AM »
Well said.

Recall that that has also been the ?logic? behind the proposal of the 26 year old Helmholts, a neophyte medical doctor with no physics background, for the impossibility to produce energy out of nothing (excess energy), namely, that no device has been created up until then which can produce excess energy, therefore, creating of such device is impossible. Ridiculous ?logic? isn?t it? No wonder that no serious journal during his time has accepted for publication Helmholtz? paper containing that bogus thesis and we only know of it due to a series of lectures he delivered at some meeting. Obviously, that was to the liking of the powers that be promoting this idea as a general principle and proclaiming its proponent as one of the most important scientists of all time. How unfortunate ? Of course, we now know that it is possible to produce energy out of nothing and therefore CoE cannot be considered a general principle. The first time this was shown rigorously is in connection with the SMOT which produces excess energy discontinuously. Now, knowing that, it?s only a matter of time to have a working self-sustaining device constructed, producing excess energy continuously. This is only a matter of skillful engineering efforts which sooner or later will emerge and will bring such device to the fore. It should be noted that even if we don?t have such device created, possibility to violate CoE is firmly established and that is unconnected with whether or not such self-sustaining device exists.

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1009
« Reply #54 on: January 26, 2008, 07:44:34 AM »
[
What? Guess what, people were trying to fly for hundreds of years, and for hundreds of years it was "impossible". That's not a logical argument.

If you want to say that smots don't work, then provide proof. I am not saying that if you don't provide proof that the smot works, I'm saying that without proof that it doesn't work, you can't say it doesn't work.
@ Psychopath

The majority of forum members who enter into discussions with Omni-bullshit are open minded to the possibility that a SMOT may one day be enabled to work, given the correct ingredients of theory and experimental results on which to base an engineered outcome. For the record I am not one of them, but I have never made claims that it is impossible. If a working SMOT loop should suddenly appear, I will gladly eat humble pie and admit that I backed the wrong horse!

Most forum members (though not all) do not make "claims" that it cannot or will not ever work. The issue regarding SMOT, is Omni-bullshits insistence that he has indisputable "proof" that it can, will and does work.

When challenged to produce a working model based on his erroneous theory, he simply resorts to semantic evasions, and proffers the excuse that it is not necessary for him to offer a practical working model, in spite of the fact that he expects this from others as shown by the following quote from another thread in which Omni-bullshit says: - "The one and only thing that really matters in such a case is actually building the device in flesh and blood and demonstrating that it really works."

Omni-bullshit fails to practice what he preaches at every level of discussion.

It is not incumbent on anybody to "disprove" something if they have made no claims, but it is incumbent on those who make "claims" to back them up with proof. In this regard, Omni-bullshit has failed miserably, but instead of admitting it, he resorts to insults and bullying.

If you don't think that a claim should be backed up with proof, then consider this: I have the answer to life, the universe, and everything, just send me a cheque for a million dollars and this knowledge can be yours! Yours truly, the tooth fairy.

#### Omnibus

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5330
« Reply #55 on: January 26, 2008, 07:50:59 AM »

You're a pathetic little creature that doesn't know his place. Anyone in the know reading your disgustingly arrogant nonsense sees that. What nerve.

#### psychopath

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 62
« Reply #56 on: January 26, 2008, 07:53:40 AM »
Quote
If you don't think that a claim should be backed up with proof, then consider this: I have the answer to life, the universe, and everything, just send me a cheque for a million dollars and this knowledge can be yours!

I do think that a claim should be backed up by proof. This is exactly what omnibus has done! Unless you think that the proof itself needs to be "proven"?

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1009
« Reply #57 on: January 26, 2008, 08:08:10 AM »

You're a pathetic little creature that doesn't know his place. Anyone in the know reading your disgustingly arrogant nonsense sees that. What nerve.
Tell someone who cares. Your opinions are, to quote your own words, "inconsequential!"

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2847