How this was done in 1821.....

[Omnibus]

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,751.msg4447.html#msg4447

"Imagine you have the ball somewhere beneath the device ? that is the ball?s initial position. You spend energy when lifting it from its initial position to the device input. The device lifts the ball up the ramp for which you spend no work. At the end of the ramp the ball falls under the action of its own weight to the initial position"

Firstly this statement fully re enforces smoky2's point...
Which you belittled him for.

Can you show us one REAL LIFE example of the closed loop you claim to have invented or does the phenomenon only exist in your fantasies and day dreams? What institution do you work for? I would be glad to PRIVATELY call and confirm your tenure. If I discover that you really are a physics professor with something I don't understand (and terrible communications skills), then I'll be glad to apologize, but in the mean time you sound and behave like a angry fascistic a-hole most of the time and have no credibility or evidence. Anyone else who comes to this forum with a claim has to provide real proof. Physical tangible evidence of some sort. YOU HAVE NEVER DONE THIS! You are not special and you will be treated just like the rest of us. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

Was Humbug really banned from the site due to a conflict with Omnibunk?

~Dingus Mungus

There are several people in this thread, you included, who need to carefully study the basics, read what I've proved and try to understand it before posting arrogant nonsense. Do your homework before posting here.

[hartiberlin]

Please ALL,
please stay ontopic or post in a new thread.
I am going to delete all flamewar messages now...

[hansvonlieven]

Good Stefan, it is not helpful

Hans von Lieven

[sm0ky2]

(+mgh1 +Mb) - (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb) - Mb) = +Ma + Mb = +Ma +mgh2 + [kinetic ...+]


i believe this is YOUR equation?  ou are missing something at the end, which is a subtraction of energy from Point A to Point B which the cycle must undergo to sustain itself - hence energy taken away from the ball from the time it reaches point A until it reaches point B and restarts the cycle.

the end of he equation should include ::

    - mgh(B - A)  where B and A are the heights of the point respectively. This ammount of energy is put INTO the system to start the next cycle, and is not ACCOUNTED FOR in your equation above.

HOW does the ball get FROM point A TO point B WITHOUT this additional energy subtracted from the system?

if you feel i am wrong about this, then please explain to to me where that energy is accounted for. 

that is a pure vertical climb from point A to point B, which i believe in your particular model is approx. 8.75" ?

the ball MUST make this climb in order to repeat the cycle, and the energy value for which is represented as

- mgh(B - A), the ONLY way to change this so it fits your original equation is to place both points A and B at the same height.

Like I said, read carefully my analysis, try to understand it and stop writing stupidities such as the above. Enough of this.

i have read and RE-read your analysis, and cannot find where this ammount of energy is accounted for, Rather than projecting vulgar insulats at me for questioning your tactics,. perhaps you could EXPLAIN where this energy is accounted for?  your analysis DOES NOT account fo this energy, and UNLESS you are going to show us a video of your "looped system" you shall explain where this energy comes from. Failure to do so will hereby deem your SMOT system as NON-Working for the fact that this energy is NOT accounted for.

You can sit here and call me a stupid, or claim that i am "not seeing things the way you are", but until you can explain to me EXACTLY HOW I AM WRONG, nothing is being accomplished here.

So quit attempting to belittle the people on this msg board and put your ideas into coherent sentences. We have all tried to point out why this system does not work in the way you have portrayed it, If you are unable/unwilling to look at other peoples idea's, the least you could do is explain why they are not valid to your patricular systrem, instead of attacking their character, and posting rediculous rebuttles with no logical explainations to address theirs concerns.

Thank you, and have a great day.
                                                 Sm0ky

[Omnibus]

@smOky2,

You're insulting me by not reading carefully what I write and by ignoring the legitimate conclusions from my analysis, impudently pushing nonsense and non-scientific requirements.

Also, this isn't a thread discussing SMOT, therefore, you'd better stop discussing it here but refer to http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2733.30.html#msg40090 where you will convince yourself, upon proper understanding of what I wrote there, that the excess energy (free energy) comes out from nothing. And when I say "from nothing", I mean it. This is what the analysis shows. You should also stop insisting that in order to prove production of energy from nothing one needs to demonstrate a "looped system". This is unscientific, to say the least. Read carefully my analysis and stop polluting this thread with incompetent remarks.