Quote from: Omnibus on March 18, 2008, 05:44:21 AM

Quote from: shruggedatlas on March 18, 2008, 04:52:01 AM

Quote from: aegis on March 17, 2008, 07:09:51 PM

Why does the loop have to be closed? If enough energy was generated in a straight line, closing the loop shouldn't be that big of an issue.

If enough energy was generated in a straight line, why not simply close the loop?  Sorry, but your logic does not work.  If you cannot close the loop, that means the overall system is losing energy, not creating it.

Not necessarily. The excess energy in SMOT isn't obtained in a form that could easily be fed into the input. I told you this a number of times. The lack of self-sustaining SMOT isn't an argument against the fact that SMOT violates CoE. The only criterion for CoE violation is to have the ball lose more energy than the energy imparted to it and that's exactly what happens.

Yes, indeed, you have pointed this out many times.  However, this discussion is not about the violation of CoE. The discussion is about extracting useful energy, which is currently not possible with the SMOT.

Depends what you mean by useful energy. If useful energy for you is only such energy which would make SMOT self-sustaining then having such kind of energy hasn't been achieved. Harnessing that kind of energy is a very difficult engineering problem. Excess energy, however, is produced in forms other than your above definition of  being useful and it may be harnessed for purposes other than making  SMOT self-sustaining. Why limit the usage of energy given to you as a gift, coming out of no energy source, to only one application--the self-sustaining run of SMOT? Isn't energy used for other purposes too?

Quote from: Omnibus on March 18, 2008, 08:03:14 AM

Depends what you mean by useful energy. If useful energy for you is only such energy which would make SMOT self-sustaining then having such kind of energy hasn't been achieved. Harnessing that kind of energy is a very difficult engineering problem. Excess energy, however, is produced in forms other than your above definition of  being useful and it may be harnessed for purposes other than making  SMOT self-sustaining. Why limit the usage of energy given to you as a gift, coming out of no energy source, to only one application--the self-sustaining run of SMOT? Isn't energy used for other purposes too?

You are dancing on a head of a pin here.  Energy is energy.  If it were possible to harness the energy of the SMOT for other purposes, and the end result was more energy out than in, then it would be possible to make the thing self-sustaining.  However, it is currently impossible to harness any energy out of the SMOT whatsoever under any kind of load, without the entire device being effectively underunity. 

If you have an actual (not purely mathematical) example of discontinuous energy harnessing from a SMOT, where the end result is that the SMOT generates more energy than what is used to manually return the ball to the starting point, then I am sure we would all like to see this marvellous overunity device.

No, that's not true. Lack of engineering application of a scientific effect can never be a proof that the scientific effect isn't real. There won't be science if this were the case.

As for mathematics used, that mathematics is only a tool describing real physical quantities. Physics is the important realm here, not mathematics. It is physics that concludes that the ball at a certain point possesses more energy which stands to be transformed into other energies than the energy that was imparted to it. Such discrepancy between said energies is nothing else but violation of CoE. That is physics, not mathematics. because the amounts of energy we're talking about are real quantities of energy not fictitious, abstract mathematical constructs.

All that is necessary to show OU is to have that ball perpetually running around the ramps. Because there
are losses in everything that the ball does. Including friction, impacts, noise etc. Forget about applications,
If you give me a SMOT with a steel ball running around continuously, I will put magnetic pickup coils on it
and produce excess free energy to light a led or whatever, that part I can guarantee. Don't forget we haven't
tuned any parmeters to optimize them yet for maximum performance - that's the fun part, if you can get to it.
This is a very unpowerful machine though and care would need to be exercised to see that is not doing it's
thing because of stray magnetic hum fields. Forget about the wheel machines for right now because they
don't have the same characteristics as the ramp. 

I think one should stick to SMOT because the increase in the height of the W weight shows experimental
potential for the magnets to have done work. The inclined ramp is very shallow so there is only so much potential
gravitational energy to work with but clanzer videos have shown it can be extended to nearly any absolute amount
that one wants by repeating gates. And the magnetic fields of the unit can do nasty things as you try to remove
the runner from them so that gravitational potential energy amounts as seen are not guaranteed.

For the magnetic field to have done work, the force would have to have been an acceleration and some
braking against acceleration would have to have occurred, resulting in braking heat. On the other hand
maybe the force was not an acceleration because it took back some but not all of it's (heat) energy and
therefore there could be 'no excess heat'.

But it would be dangerous if a Magnetic field did work but expected to always be able to take it *all* back on
work-out. As shown in my next future post.

If either in the heat area or by splitting the axle mass into two parts we get something that can exit
the magnetic field unhindered - leaving the magnetic parts of the runner contained within the field we
can potentially give the magnetic field problems. It should not have raised that mass against gravity
in the first place!

Having a self-running machine is always a true indication of overunity...It's just trickery in which
environmental energy field is being tapped to supply it, that is negative.

See my subsequent future post.

MarkSCoffman

Quote from: Omnibus on March 18, 2008, 04:16:53 PM

No, that's not true. Lack of engineering application of a scientific effect can never be a proof that the scientific effect isn't real. There won't be science if this were the case.

That is true, but similarly, controversial views like yours, with zero empirical evidence of overunity, inevitably end up marginalized.  If you want to get anywhere, at least set up a SMOT that discontinuously produces more energy than it consumes.  And by that, I mean that it allows energy to be harnessed from it, and that amount of energy is greater than the energy required to constantly return the ball to the starting spot.  But wait, if that were possible, then you could make it self sustain.  See where I am getting at?

How come zero empirical evidence? On the contrary, it is exactly the empirical evidence proving that the ball has available at a certain point more energy to transfer into other energies than all the energy ever imparted to it. I already told you, these energies we are comparing are real, empirical energies, not some fictitious entities, result of imagination and mathematical juggling.

So, we have an experimental physical fact going against a principle considered universal in science. As usual, one such experimental fact is enough to overthrow a theoretical principle such as CoE which was only accepted due to claims for empirical universality. Thus, you have it backwards.

The above clear cut empirical fact of energy disbalance going against a theoretical proposal that such balance is impossible cannot be controversial for any honest qualified scientist.

And I should repeat, harnessing the excess energy due to the observed energy discrepancy is a purely engineering problem whose success or lack of success has nothing to do with the scientific fact and cannot serve as any basis for accepting or rejecting that scientific fact.

As I've told you many times before, the question of marginalization has nothing to do with physics. This a purely sociological problem. Presenting a self-sustaining device, harnessing continuously the excess energy already proven beyond doubt, has only a psychological role as part of that sociology of acceptance. Existence of a self-sustaining device is not a necessary element in the reasoning hard sciences require for a physical fact to be considered real. When two real amounts of energy of the kind we're discussing differ that is enough evidence for physics to reject a principle stating that such amounts of energy should never differ. Never mind whether or not this difference is harnessed for practical purposes.