Is this the first selfrunning overunity motor w/o batteries ? Mike?s motor

[Omnibus]

@hydrocontrol,

First, depletion of magnets is non-issue. To magnetize a piece of magnetic material from scratch one needs to apply field created by several hundred watts for less than a second. Thus, even if full de-magnetization occurs (which is never the case) the energy ?released? would be a couple of hundred joules, not enough to explain the claims of even the most modest inventors of overunity machines.

Also, I agree that it?d be nice to have a device running without a battery while powering a couple of LED?s but this will only be an engineering achievement. As I said, not achieving self-sustaining construction is only a proof that the concrete constructor hasn?t been able to achieve one and not that the principle of conservation of energy isn?t violated which is the scientifically important fact. Scientifically, violation of the principle of conservation of energy is a proven fact and now what remains is to have a handy constructor make a practical self-sustaining device based on that violation.

[hydrocontrol]

Omnibus wrote:

Also, I agree that it?d be nice to have a device running without a battery while powering a couple of LED?s but this will only be an engineering achievement.

But it would be a MAJOR engineering achievement if it can be built repeatably from a simple set of plans and worked EVERYTIME. Not just one out of twenty tries.  The only way to change the 'Mainstream' of science is to sit something in front of people that shows undeniable evidence. Having a device sitting on thousands of peoples desks is one of the best ways to 'change' mass perception. The only way to change the masses is to change the perception and that normally requires hitting them over the head with it. 
One of the best ways I could think of is to produce a table/desk top cool looking novelty item that everyone just 'has' to have. A wally-world $30. item. After it has been sitting on their table/desk running for a year then just point and shout 'there..your proof of overunity'... but then the next thing you know the governments will be 'outlawing' magnets as hazardous for us. 
Seems just recently a scientist at Purdue U that claimed cold fusion was finally vindicated with positive replication from another University. Will we ever see it to fruitation.. Not likely in our lifetime.. Why.. becuase it is not 'Mainstream' science.. Too bad civilizations are too short sighted... 

[seeandbelieve]

sorry, omnibus, i just can't see any OU in the video.
1  ball enters magnetic field at 8.5 cm -> potential energy goes up (0.5 cm x weight ball)
2  ball falls -> potential energy becomes inertial energy
3  ball leaves magnetic field -> inertial energy becomes less ( as if ball was falling from 8.5 cm height and not from 9.0 cm).

have a nice day, seeandbelieve

[Omnibus]

@seeandbelieve,

The best way to understand this is to look at omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif.

The gravitational potential energy spent is mgh1 while the gravitational potential energy lost is mg(h1 + h2), that is, greater than the gravitational potential energy spent which is a clear violation of the principle of conservation of energy. All this in a closed loop in the magnetic field which means that no magnetic potential energy has been spent or lost.

[Omnibus]

@hydrocontrol,

The best way is if science was functioning properly, considering the evidence and not resorting to dishonesty as is the case nowadays.

Like I said, there is ample evicence (cf. SMOT) that the principle of conservation of energy is violated, at that, very reproducibly. No more than that is needed for a true scientist to acknowledge the violation.

As for the practical application, it will come in time, as in may other cases when scientific discoveries have found their place in practical devices.