SMOT! - (previously about the OC MPMM)

[Koen1]

Yeah yeah, bla bla,
you keep shouting that you have OU in the SMOT, and that whoever puts forth a critical analysis is wrong,
but so far you still haven't shown me a continuously moving SMOT, nor any other form of closed loop SMOT.
Why don't you put your money where your big mouth is, and build this mythological closed looped SMOT,
and post your videos of it here?
I am sure that everyone will graceously acknowledge your mathematical analysis to be correct, when
they finally get to see some proper empirical proof, instead of only mathematical wishfull thinking.

[Omnibus]

Yeah yeah, bla bla,
you keep shouting that you have OU in the SMOT, and that whoever puts forth a critical analysis is wrong,
but so far you still haven't shown me a continuously moving SMOT, nor any other form of closed loop SMOT.
Why don't you put your money where your big mouth is, and build this mythological closed looped SMOT,
and post your videos of it here?
I am sure that everyone will graceously acknowledge your mathematical analysis to be correct, when
they finally get to see some proper empirical proof, instead of only mathematical wishfull thinking.

Hey, buddy, read what I write before posting. I can't repeat the same thing hundreds of times. The only criterion for whether or not CoE is violated is the comparison of the input and lost energy. Nothing else. Therefore, whether or not a given device is self-sustaining is immaterial with regard to violation of CoE. Only the comparison of the mentioned energies is what matters. The comparison of their quantities, not whether or not they are useful or not and whether or not they can result in a self-sustaining device is what tells us whether or not the CoE is violated.

[Koen1]

And why don't you read what I write before posting?

Post a video of your closed loop SMOT!
Then get back to your mathematics ad infinitum.

You can calculate how much the ball might roll all you want, but that still doesn't make the ball actually roll.
First make the ball roll continuously. Then calculate for us how much energy is produced.

[Omnibus]

And why don't you read what I write before posting?

Post a video of your closed loop SMOT!
Then get back to your mathematics ad infinitum.

You can calculate how much the ball might roll all you want, but that still doesn't make the ball actually roll.
First make the ball roll continuously. Then calculate for us how much energy is produced.

Read what I write and don't clutter the thread with nonsense.

[supersam]

@ all,

can anyone, please just start to substitute some of these variables into real numbers, just for the sake of real argument, instead of all of this hypothetical, bs?  lets just say that the mass of the ball is _____.  then we can work from there.  forget time it might not be relative.  what about gravity we should be able to come up with some real numbers for that. can anyone think of any other variable that can be filled in with real numbers.  get out of the abstract math and i think this disscussion can be wrapped up pretty quickly, one way or the other!  quit with all the name calling and just do the real math.  there are answers to alot of the variables here so why not just start doing the real math instead of looking at the abstract or opinions of each other?

lol
sam

ps:  just my thoughts as a layman.