SMOT! - (previously about the OC MPMM)

[shruggedatlas]

The above was explained many, many times and I think we should let this thread sink now because at this moment, having already firm conviction that CoE can be violated, we have to focus our efforts to apply this already confirmed violation of CoE in a practical device producing energy from nothing continuously, such as, for instance, the device presented by @alsetalonkin. So let us all move to the topic discussing the replication of that device.

Look, the vast majority of people here do not share this "firm conviction", so it's wishful thinking to say that.  A little corroboration from some respected peers would go a long way here.  Is there anyone at all in the respected scientific community who agrees with you?  You have had a long time to disseminate your ideas - surely there must be someone.  Is there anywhere we can read more abou this that was not written by you?

[Omnibus]

@shrugged,

There are colleagues agreeing with the argument but that's not the point. I suppose you know well that in science truth isn't established by voting and there is no dictatorship of the "vast majority" there. In science millions can be wrong and one can be right especially when many of those have no clue regarding the argument. I see you want to hear an independent opinion, however, unfortunately, I cannot engage in offering any names. As is usual in science every scientist is personally responsible for his own stance.

To help you understand the situation I'll mention something that happened in Oslo when I visited Finsrud. That's not connected with my argument but is still telling. Finsrud mentioned that a professor from the Physics department of Oslo University has analyzed his creation so I went to see that person only to hear that, yes, indeed the device works but there must be a trick. When I asked what that trick might be the person said he didn't know what exactly it is but there must be a trick. My astonishment went even further when I asked him if he would accept that it's a real  perpetuum mobile if it were proven beyond any doubt that there's no trick and no other trivial explanation can account for it. He said straight to my face--no, even then he won't accept it. People are set in their ways, you know, mostly afraid for their jobs. Look how @alsetalonkin is behaving, ready to side with someone accusing him outright of fraud and cursing at him, rather than stand his ground. Speaking of Oslo, I met with another physics professor who has already retired from the department and you could immediately see the difference. While he was still skeptical, he felt embarrassed to hear a colleague would deny evidence at any rate and tried to excuse him saying that he didn't really mean that. He meant it, though. I can go on and on with giving you examples of how important ideas are prone to human frailties, as if it isn't well known in the history of science. 

Have no doubt that the history will repeat itself if this device turns out to be what many of us here think it is. Don't expect to have many colleagues lining up to even see it let alone discuss the possibility that it violates CoE. As you can imagine, I, for one,  would go out of my way to bring it to the attention of the scientific community if I see that my replica shows the effects from the video (let me also repeat for the umptieth time for some small minds here--giving full credit to @alsetalonkin). Don't hold your hopes high, though, it won't be an easy battle.

[tinu]

This is real impudence. You were told that the conversation with you is finished, especially becuase you don't understand that Mb is not  greater than Ma but you impudently persist with your nonsense.

Mb is greater than Ma, as proved. Demonstration is clearly posted above. (I have another demonstration also, leading to the same conclusion.) So, refute it if you can or shut the **** up.
You lately talk nothing but gibberish, once your mistake was revealed.

[Omnibus]

@tinu,

Stop with this nonsense.

[tinu]

@acp,

Correct. Before the experiment starts the ball never gets pulled from C to B. And, nevertheless it loses energy along B-C in the course of the experiment, that is, energy that hasn't been imparted to it at the start of the experiment is being lost during the experiment.Think about it, when you impart to the ball energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb))| to raise it from A to B then, if CoE is to be obeyed the ball must lose that exact amount, that is |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb))|, when it goes back to A and complete a closed loop. Not so, however, in our case of the ball completing a closed loop. The ball being at B (raised from A) and having energy (mgh1 + Mb) at B in our case doesn't lose energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)| when it goes back at A and closes the A-B-C-A loop. The ball in our case loses, as was said, energy Mb = (mgh2 + [KE + ...] ) as well as energy mgh1. This energy (that is the energy (mgh1 + Mb) which the ball loses in going from B back to A, closing the loop) is more than the energy |(mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)| that was imparted to it to raise it from A to B and that's a clear violation of CoE.

The above was explained many, many times and I think we should let this thread sink now because at this moment, having already firm conviction that CoE can be violated, we have to focus our efforts to apply this already confirmed violation of CoE in a practical device producing energy from nothing continuously, such as, for instance, the device presented by @alsetalonkin. So let us all move to the topic discussing the replication of that device.

The above is nonsense, not my posts.

A little bit more and you would cry like a child in the hope that maybe some na?ves will accept your gibberish as a proof. Come on, you?re busted. You do not have a proof but plain BS.