How this was done in 1821.....

[Omnibus]

Your analogy is extremely poor.  Goddard's rockets actually worked in the way he intended.  Sure, they could not take him to the moon, but the rocket did provide propulsion as outlined in his theories.

On the contrary, my analogy is just the right one. SMOT proves violation of CoE. To ask for more is the same as asking why Goddard didn?t land on the moon.

In this case, I am not asking the SMOT to power a nation, or a city, or a house, or heck, even a single light bulb for any amount of time.  I am simply asking that the SMOT provide a tiny amount of added energy, enough to return its missile to its starting location.  Engineering-wise, I have described the solution.  Either make a chain of SMOTs, or use a single smot with some kind of track to return the ball to the starting location.  The fact that the SMOT cannot do this is evidence that it is simply not imparting any additional energy to the ball.

I?m also not asking Goddard for much, only to land on the Moon. I?m not asking him to bring cities and nations to the Moon. Your reasoning is ridiculous. Typical reasoning of a non-scientist only interested in the utilitarian aspect of a discovery:?What will it give me??, ?Will it improve my life?? and so on. Engineering, engineering, that?s the Science. Typical for a lay person.

I will ask you this, if the ball leaves the SMOT with more energy than it started with, why can it not return to its starting location?  An extremely weak electric motor can do this, and we have the "engineering" required to create the ramp or circle of SMOTs I described.  There is nothing left to create, except a device that can actually add energy to a ball, and the SMOT is clearly not it.

You may ask the same question, concerning engineering. as many times as you want and you?ll always get the same answer?that?s not part of the scientific exploration, that is the engineering part of it which is not under discussion when a scientific effect is the subject of the conversation.

I am beginning to suspect that your definition of "over unity" is not the traditional one.  If you think that a magnet simply pulling a ball once creates energy, then you have your own definition that differs from the traditional.  Unfortunately, your definition of "over unity" is present everywhere and is nothing special and does not lead to an energy producing device.  I really think you are just confusing force with energy.

You?d better begin to suspect what your knowledge of the matter under discussion is and don?t transfer your confusion about force and energy onto others.

[shruggedatlas]

You may ask the same question, concerning engineering. as many times as you want and you?ll always get the same answer?that?s not part of the scientific exploration, that is the engineering part of it which is not under discussion when a scientific effect is the subject of the conversation.

Fine, you have a magical device that produces energy, yet with all our knowledge, we have no way of capturing this energy.  Apparently, harnessing the force of a moving ball is beyond modern science, even though the modern internal combusion engine is hundreds of times more complicated.  I do not believe there is any scenario or set of facts that could possibly be presented that would convince you that the SMOT is not over unity, so I give up.  You see the ball move, and you think "free energy."  Too bad the ball only moves once.  Good luck with your inventions.

[Omnibus]

You don't get it, do you? Please don't impose your confusion on others.

[shruggedatlas]

You don't get it, do you? Please don't impose your confusion on others.

I could say the same to you, but I respect your right state your ideas, as much as I disagree with them, and so please respect mine.  Until someone kicks me off this forum, I intend to voice my skepticism about some of the devices discussed here.

[Omnibus]

Yours are not statement of ideas. Yours is a plain and simple confusion.