How this was done in 1821.....

[Omnibus]

@NerzhDishual,

The excess energy produced by the SMOT comes from nothing. It is different from the cases you mention, such as, say, fuel cells or heat pumps whereby there is an actual source of energy (e.g. at the expense of the energy of the environment, for instance). In SMOT there's no such source, the additional energy produced comes, as mentioned above, out of nothing. Obviously, after having this experiment conclusively proving that CoE can be violated, we have to change our understanding of the nature of energy. Energy is a more general concept than hitherto thought, and is an expression of the motion of matter; for the appearance of energy it is not always necessary to have some pre-existing quantity which the energy would arise from.

[NerzhDishual]

@Ommibus

If you carefully read what I was trying to say you will see that we could actually agree . I try to be more accurate and clear as possible, should my English permit it.

According to you, the energy comes from 'nothing'.OK. But what is 'nothing'? That is the question. A very philosophical one.

Is it

always necessary to have a pre-existing quantity which the energy could arise from?

According to homeopathy: seems not. You do not need a single molecule of the active substance to get an effect. It is just the 'memory of water'. I do agree with this. But, what is the 'substratum' of memory, if any? IMHO, the same question arises about the controversed question of a life after death. Does it not?



Best

[steve_whiss]

The big Q is - is this energy new?

IF it is new, then Law of Conservation of Energy is <somehow> broken. Its unlikely the maths is bad (it's been raked over too many times) - so to my mind more likely some assumption or real-world aspect the maths ignores - makes some physical difference.

It seems to me that likely, the energy is from someplace else - so already exists in some invisible, undetectable form.

For instance, zpe. Humans can only see say 10^-4m by eye and down to 10^-18 m or so by electron microscope.

But we know from Wheeler in the 1960's that at foam sizes (10^-35m) that space itself is seething with massive, massive energy ... far greater then the E=mc2 energy we are used to.

So why not that?

I do not know how this can ever be proven.

what is special about magnets?

Anyhow, how do they work? Another thread perhaps.

Steve

[bitRAKE]

@bitRAKE

People that measure the SMOT ignore the fact they are placing the bearing and that require more energy when the magnets are present. If the bearing could be dropped onto the rail (from far outside of the magnetic field) with or without the magnets present then it would be proof. But that experiment will not have the desired outcome!

ThatÃ,’s incorrect. Please see above my analysis which explains why youÃ,’re incorrect.

Well, when you stop pretending the magnetic field isn't there then we can have an honest discussion. You cannot turn on the magnetic field after the bearing is placed on the track. No where in your analysis do you cover the pre-rail magnetic field effect on the bearing.

[shruggedatlas]

Conclusively production of excess energy in SMOT can be demonstrated in a closed loop as in http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847 shown schematically here: http://data.image.zabim.com/o-wa51V9glc9.jpg.

That's a great closed loop, except for one thing.  A hand is magically appearing and lifting the ball back to its starting position.  I think I see your plan for free energy!  Hire cheap labor to move little balls.