Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



Testing a SMOT

Started by Honk, September 28, 2007, 04:51:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Omnibus

Quote from: xpenzif on October 03, 2007, 03:07:55 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on October 03, 2007, 07:18:44 AM
Quote from: xpenzif on October 01, 2007, 01:27:32 PM
I would like to see a website further explaining Omnibus' finding also. The equation I came up with was actually the same one Sm0ky2 posted(although his post "disappeared"). When new equations are offered, they are answered "You don't understand/ Read it again/ Of course its OU." Rather than "Here's exactly where your equation fails..." I'm trying to learn about smot, help me better understand it. Tell me why exactly sm0ky2 was wrong.
Go back to the beginning of this thread or in one of the neighboring threads and you'll find the explanations you're asking for. Stop cluttering the thread with useless postings. Do your homework before posting here.
I said FURTHER EXPLAINING. Anyways this is exactly what I was talking about; the "you don't understand/ read it again" argument. Quit cluttering the thread with your useless postings.
Stop cluttering the thread. Noone here needs to be informed how confused you are.

acp

stop cluttering the thread.

gaby de wilde

Quote from: Omnibus on October 04, 2007, 09:51:39 AMStop cluttering the thread. Noone here needs to be informed how confused you are.

This is the full thing?

Quote from: Omnibus on July 15, 2007, 10:45:20 AM

Here is my analysis from which you should somehow try to understand that I am ignoring nothing.

The analysis of a ball going around a closed loop as in http://data.image.zabim.com/o-wa51V9glc9.jpg reveals the following:

Since the ball doesn?t return along B->A the ball does not lose only the energy portion, imparted to it by the researcher, (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) from the energy (+mgh1 +Mb) it has at B, that is, it?s not true that the ball returns at A with the energy

(+mgh1 +Mb) - (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) = +Ma (CoE obeyed)

As experiment shows, the ball returns along C->A, therefore, the ball loses in addition to (+mgh1 ?(Ma ? Mb)) also the energy portion (+Mb ? 0) = mgh2 + [kinetic + ...] which the ball had stored at B but was realized at C. Therefore, the ball returns at A with the energy

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

As a result, in SMOT, the initial +Ma is restored and in addition an excess of +mgh2 + [kinetic ...+] is produced which is in clear violation of CoE.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847

You can post images using [ img] tags. Highlight the url and click button 2 on row 2.



In the construction drawing here there is steel backing, you don't use this?

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/s102jlnp.htm
blog  | papers | tech | inventors  | video