Would a self looping SMOT be proof of OU?

[maw2432]

Just a thought,   maybe XS could provide a Non-disclosure aggreement (NDA) like Steorn,  of his device for some of us to verify that is real and works...??    But I doubt he would do it ....   

Bill

[Omnibus]

What device? XS is too good to have a device.

[Low-Q]

I have conclusively proved that smot producess excess energy and thus violates CoE. The fact that some people don't have basic understanding of physics which prevents then from understanding the proof doesn't make that proof one bit invalid.

No, you haven't. The fact isn't that people don't have basic understanding of physics. The fact is that you have overlooked important details which you are too ignorant to see no matter how many times I have to repeat that for you. SMOT does not violate CoE.

[Omnibus]

My proof that smot-like devices are OU is definitive and needs no further discussion. Those interested in the details of the proof may go back in the forum and read the arguments. Of course, the fact that someone doesn't understand the arguments doesn't mean that the arguments are invalid.

Besides, I have proven definitively that the standard physics contains inherently violation of CoE. This should never be forgotten by those who need firm ground for their OU claims. Thus, we don't need to concede with the foisting of the mainstream that standard science denies violation of CoE and therefore have to look for esoteric, mostly unacceptable explanations for our OU findings such as energy from the vacuum, zero point energy and what not. Luckily, everything fits right into the framework of the known science, understood deeply and correctly.

[Low-Q]

My proof that smot-like devices are OU is definitive and needs no further discussion. Those interested in the details of the proof may go back in the forum and read the arguments. Of course, the fact that someone doesn't understand the arguments doesn't mean that the arguments are invalid.

Besides, I have proven definitively that the standard physics contains inherently violation of CoE. This should never be forgotten by those who need firm ground for their OU claims. Thus, we don't need to concede with the foisting of the mainstream that standard science denies violation of CoE and therefore have to look for esoteric, mostly unacceptable explanations for our OU findings such as energy from the vacuum, zero point energy and what not. Luckily, everything fits right into the framework of the known science, understood deeply and correctly.

What appears to be a proof are not a real proof. Even you can get wrong once in a while. I have proven definitely that a SMOT are not violating CoE. One really do not need to be very skilled to understand that SMOT cannot violate CoE. The explanation lies in its simple and understandable physics of a SMOT.
Because the SMOT also use magnetic force, means you cannot rely the proof of CoE just by considering the balls delta H with respect to the gravitional force only. This is not the only thing you have missed. Also that the ball gains potential energy at the very moment you use your hand to place the ball at the beginning of the track. So it is the hand that applies potential energy into the system. What appears to be a violation of CoE, is your hand applied that energy in advance. There is more to the SMOT that proves no violation of CoE. If you want to know, try studying your papers a few times more.
No matter what you reply, a SMOT does not violate CoE. There is no real proof of violation of CoE other than an apparent proof due to ignorance.

Vidar