SMOT! - (previously about the OC MPMM)

[Omnibus]

@Low-Q,

While for the example with the apple, residing in one conservative field, CoE holds without a doubt, when there is a favorable superposition of two conservative fields so that they can assist each other CoE can be violated and energy can be produced out of nothing.

This is the case with the device shown schematically here: http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif

Thus, as seen in the above link, when an amount of energy |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| is necessary to be imparted to the ball to raise it from A to the apex B then obviously the ball should lose exactly the same amount of energy |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| if it is to return from B to A. CoE is obeyed. However, if the same amount |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| of energy is imparted to the ball and the ball doesn't settle with B as an apex but, as experiment shows, instead reaches another apex C then, obviously, when the ball returns back at A the ball loses amount of energy different from the amount |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| imparted to it. This is in clear violation of CoE.

Having already the above argument available (which you should study carefully to understand it well) from now on you should never post unsubstantiated statements claiming that CoE can never be violated.

[bobinaccounting]

so this is it ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIvZJ9xGutI

[RunningBare]

so this is it ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIvZJ9xGutI

Yes, thats the one

Oh and omnibus thanks for screwing up a perfectly good thread on the steorn forum.

[Butch]

The LaFonte Group is building at this time three OC motors to be tested at three different locations. If it proves sucessful, we will video the test on a glass top table and we are also building the rotor out of clear plastic. If the motor continues to run, we will set up a web cam so it can be viewed by any one at any time. Mark is fabricating at this time and has magnets being sent two day delivery.
Will post test results.
Thanks,
Butch LaFonte

[Low-Q]

@Low-Q,

While for the example with the apple, residing in one conservative field, CoE holds without a doubt, when there is a favorable superposition of two conservative fields so that they can assist each other CoE can be violated and energy can be produced out of nothing.

This is the case with the device shown schematically here: http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif

Thus, as seen in the above link, when an amount of energy |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| is necessary to be imparted to the ball to raise it from A to the apex B then obviously the ball should lose exactly the same amount of energy |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| if it is to return from B to A. CoE is obeyed. However, if the same amount |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| of energy is imparted to the ball and the ball doesn't settle with B as an apex but, as experiment shows, instead reaches another apex C then, obviously, when the ball returns back at A the ball loses amount of energy different from the amount |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| imparted to it. This is in clear violation of CoE.

Having already the above argument available (which you should study carefully to understand it well) from now on you should never post unsubstantiated statements claiming that CoE can never be violated.

You forget that the magnetic field in point C, which is the strongest field, is breaking down the balls natural acceleration of 9.81m/s² in the first few centimeters of the "free" fall towards point A. Hence CoE is still obeyed. So maybe you should be more careful when pointing fingers towards others. Those who does, allways gets several pointing fingers back

Vidar