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.

Many thanks.

# New Book

Products

WaterMotor kit

### Statistics

• Total Members: 84255
• Latest: romeos69

• Total Posts: 898211
• Total Topics: 15837
• Online Today: 44
• Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
• Users: 3
• Guests: 19
• Total: 22

#### Omnibus

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5330
« Reply #30 on: January 25, 2008, 03:29:42 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.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

« Reply #30 on: January 25, 2008, 03:29:42 PM »

#### RunningBare

• Hero Member
• Posts: 809
« Reply #31 on: January 25, 2008, 04:02:52 PM »
After rigorous analysis it has been proved beyond a doubt that omnibus has proved nothing.

#### DA

• Newbie
• Posts: 31
« Reply #32 on: January 25, 2008, 04:20:23 PM »
I?m sorry but the math DOES NOT prove CoE violation. This must be a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding because the equations already posted actually disprove CoE violation without any doubt whatsoever.

Thanks,
Tinu

I found the proof!  I think.  Very straightforward post by Omnibus in the thread mentioned above.

(from the great Ommibus)
"Thus, as seen in the above link (which doesn't work), when an amount of energy |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| is necessary to be imparted to the ball to raise it from A to the apex B then obviously the ball should lose exactly the same amount of energy |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| if it is to return from B to A. CoE is obeyed. However, if the same amount |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| of energy is imparted to the ball and the ball doesn't settle with B as an apex but, as experiment shows, instead reaches another apex C then, obviously, when the ball returns back at A the ball loses amount of energy different from the amount |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| imparted to it. This is in clear violation of CoE."

He calls this a proof?  Rigorous?  Irrefutable?  It says absolutely nothing.  To repeat |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| four times with some words and the letters A, B, and C interspersed says nothing, and proves or disproves nothing.

My faith in Omnibus is shaken, but I did find these other statements made by Omnibus in that thread.  He does seem to be fairly consistent.

"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."  (use flesh and blood, not HDPE and magnets!??)

"Go away @RunningBare. Your input isn't necessary. You have made no contributions to this field and your only role is to be a nuisance."

"You have no contributions. And you're not supporting these guys. You're a hypocrite. I have rarely seen anyone spew so much crap throughout all these years in a forum and have no shame."

"You're wrong. It has never been nor it will ever be that theory would precede experiment. Absolutely not. You're quite confused about that."

"This analysis is incorrect."

"Don't clutter the thread with nonsense."

"This is obviously incorrect."

"If you don't have anything to contribute, as you obviously don't, restrain from posting."

"As for playing with a full deck, that's an unfair statement."

"Science requires to do the opposite of what you're saying."

"Science is a totalitarian system."

"No, you're wrong. "

"You and the likes of you who contribute nothing to the discussion at hand should be prevented from cluttering the thread."

"Your's is wishful thinking by someone who, as you've already demonstrated, doesn't know elementary things pertaining to the discussion but pushes impudently into it."

"Stop posting rubbish."

"You don't know how science works."

"Wrong. As I told you yesterday, go learn some physics and then come back."

"Stop with this nonsense."

"Go away. Learn some physics first and then come back."

"Stop posting crap here."

"This quote shows to what  great lengths of ridiculousness one can get in his desperate attempts not to admit his mistakes."

"Instead of being ashamed of yourself and quietly watch what's going on so that you can learn something you're participating in multiple threads arrogantly spewing utter nonsense teaching others what is and what isn't."

"Of course, I'm not wrong. Those who confuse force with energy are wrong."

"Restrain from showing your incompetence. You've shown enough."

"This last posting is a proof you have no understanding."

"This is a useless exchange. Learn some physics first before trying to understand this argument."

"Don't bother. You can't prove the unprovable. Like I said, learn some physics first and then come back for a discussion."

"No, that's incorrect."

"Stop cluttering the thread with this nonsense."

"You haven't understood it correctly."

"What you're saying is incorrect."

"You want to be funny, don't you? You forget, however, that physics isn't a comedy show."

"Don't even bother continuing this."

"No, I can't waste time to sort out your confusion."

"Your incoherent rantings should stop. This thread isn't a trash bin for intellectual garbage."

"What you're writing is nonsense. When somethings is nonsense it must be identified as such and that isn't derogatory."

"Stop filling this thread with crap."

"I will not stop asking you to cut out filling the thread with gibberish, be sure. Don't waste your time."

"I will not stop asking you to cut out filling the thread with gibberish, be sure. Don't waste your time."

"Stop insulting the intelligence of the readers."

"You are confused and should deal with your confusion first before bothering people with it."

"You have to do something about your gaps in understanding physics instead of trying to push it on others."

"Hey, idiot, . . ."

"Now, yours is really cretinism. What high school physics? You're not fit for grade school even, you moron."

"Only someone who has entirely lost his mind can claim such a thing. "

"You must be a complete idiot not to see this."

"Cut this out, you moron, that was explained numerous times already. and people shouldn't suffer from your mediocrity by reading infinite exchanges explaining the same thing."

"This is impudence to no end. You have no shame."

"Who are you to say that? A mediocrity impudently uttering nonsense."

"You are completely wrong and you must apologize again. I didn't start calling you names. You did."

Gee whillikers, this Omnibus guy is not very nice.  Rather quick with the insults!  Since his "proof" is obviously lacking, meaning it "proves" nothing, I am heartbroken.  He is so quick with insulting people for no reason, I can see why so many people would like to have him banned.  Add me to the list, ban him.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

« Reply #32 on: January 25, 2008, 04:20:23 PM »

#### RunningBare

• Hero Member
• Posts: 809
« Reply #33 on: January 25, 2008, 04:30:52 PM »
I can see why so many people would like to have him banned.  Add me to the list, ban him.

Dun hold your breath, Stef loves him (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)

#### tinu

• Hero Member
• Posts: 630
« Reply #34 on: January 25, 2008, 04:32:33 PM »
@DA,

LOL!
But there is a reason for insults: lack of any other arguments.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

« Reply #34 on: January 25, 2008, 04:32:33 PM »

#### Omnibus

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5330
« Reply #35 on: January 25, 2008, 04:37:12 PM »
@DA,

Thanks for posting what really has to be said in this case. But be sure to read what I said and try to have it sink, don't just post it, because it applies to you too. Oh, and don't continue because you'll hear deservedly more of it. For people such as you truth is an insult but that doesn't mean your thinking should set the standard.

#### tinu

• Hero Member
• Posts: 630
« Reply #36 on: January 25, 2008, 04:51:24 PM »
One raises a ball from A to B.
Then, by contemplating its free fall from B to A, in a spark of geniality he/she observes that the ball has not only kinetic energy but also a much larger one amounting mc2. Gee! That?s a huge amount of energy! Compared to it, mgh is nothing! So, one puts in mgh but the ball has mgh+mc2. It has to be overunity, right? And CoE violation is thus proved beyond any doubt...

Duh!
Same is with SMOT.
What has the imparted (input) energy to do with total energy?! Absolutely nothing.

Bottom line: When output energy will be properly defined and described by an equation other than Eout=0 (which is correct as shown in the dedicated thread), the subject of CoE violation is SMOT might be worthy to be re-opened again. Alternatively, a relevant experiment will do it as well.

Tinu

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

« Reply #36 on: January 25, 2008, 04:51:24 PM »

#### RunningBare

• Hero Member
• Posts: 809
« Reply #37 on: January 25, 2008, 04:57:43 PM »
Like I said, the measurement in @alsetalokin's first video is messy and no advocacy can save it.

Well Omni, I was trying to help out, but obviously your the perfect person so no one has a hells chance in aiding you.

#### Omnibus

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5330
« Reply #38 on: January 25, 2008, 05:02:35 PM »
Like I said, the measurement in @alsetalokin's first video is messy and no advocacy can save it.

Well Omni, I was trying to help out, but obviously your the perfect person so no one has a hells chance in aiding you.
That's the wrong thread to post this, isn't it?

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

« Reply #38 on: January 25, 2008, 05:02:35 PM »

#### Omnibus

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5330
« Reply #39 on: January 25, 2008, 05:03:19 PM »
One raises a ball from A to B.
Then, by contemplating its free fall from B to A, in a spark of geniality he/she observes that the ball has not only kinetic energy but also a much larger one amounting mc2. Gee! That?s a huge amount of energy! Compared to it, mgh is nothing! So, one puts in mgh but the ball has mgh+mc2. It has to be overunity, right? And CoE violation is thus proved beyond any doubt...

Duh!
Same is with SMOT.
What has the imparted (input) energy to do with total energy?! Absolutely nothing.

Bottom line: When output energy will be properly defined and described by an equation other than Eout=0 (which is correct as shown in the dedicated thread), the subject of CoE violation is SMOT might be worthy to be re-opened again. Alternatively, a relevant experiment will do it as well.

Tinu

That's gibberish and gibberish can never serve as scientific proof.

#### Omnibus

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5330
« Reply #40 on: January 25, 2008, 05:04:04 PM »
The experiment (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847) proving violation of CoE is presented schematically here: http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif (if the link doesn?t open hit Reload). Denote the mass of ball by m, the gravitational constant by g, the magnetic potential energy at points A and B respectively by Ma and Mb, the heights to raise the ball from point A to B and from B to C respectively h1 and h2, kinetic (and other) energy by Kc.

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) the ball has at point C 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.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2008, 05:27:59 PM by Omnibus »

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

« Reply #40 on: January 25, 2008, 05:04:04 PM »

#### RunningBare

• Hero Member
• Posts: 809
« Reply #41 on: January 25, 2008, 05:05:15 PM »
Like I said, the measurement in @alsetalokin's first video is messy and no advocacy can save it.

Well Omni, I was trying to help out, but obviously your the perfect person so no one has a hells chance in aiding you.
That's the wrong thread to post this, isn't it?

No, I dont want to pollute the other thread, thats what this one is for.

#### Omnibus

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5330
« Reply #42 on: January 25, 2008, 05:06:40 PM »
Like I said, the measurement in @alsetalokin's first video is messy and no advocacy can save it.

Well Omni, I was trying to help out, but obviously your the perfect person so no one has a hells chance in aiding you.
That's the wrong thread to post this, isn't it?

No, I dont want to pollute the other thread, thats what this one is for.
You're polluting any thread you post in, not just this one.

#### RunningBare

• Hero Member
• Posts: 809
« Reply #43 on: January 25, 2008, 05:31:32 PM »

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5330