Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[Mr.Entropy]

Silly

Clerk:  That wasn't very insulting at all

Mr.E: Sigh. No. I swear It wasn't behaving this way before.

Clerk: Should we say something about SMOT?  Perhaps point out that a superposition of conservative fields is, itself, conservative?  Maybe mention that the demostration that supposedly "proves" OU would look the same whether it was OU or not?

Mr. E: Oh, please no.  *whispers* It can hear you

[Omnibus]

in order for you to have a valid argument you need to spend a few bucks and get what you need to build what you claim is works.
if you could build it you could shut me and all others up.
until then you have nothing to say

Regarding SMOT, I'm shutting you (don't bother about others, don't hide behind their backs) up at once. SMOT does violate CoE by producing excess energy (energy from nothing) discontinuously because the energy (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) which the hand imparts to the ball is less than the energy (mgh1 + Mb) the ball loses upon closing the loop. That is in clear violation of CoE.

You wanted a valid argument, you got it

[Omnibus]

Silly

Clerk:  That wasn't very insulting at all

Mr.E: Sigh. No. I swear It wasn't behaving this way before.

Clerk: Should we say something about SMOT?  Perhaps point out that a superposition of conservative fields is, itself, conservative?  Maybe mention that the demostration that supposedly "proves" OU would look the same whether it was OU or not?

Mr. E: Oh, please no.  *whispers* It can hear you

Silly.

[rice]

may i ask why you dont build it?
do you have all your fingers.
do you have basic tools.
if yes it should be easy

[Omnibus]

may i ask why you dont build it?
do you have all your fingers.
do you have basic tools.
if yes it should be easy

I have built SMOT, I have shown it works and I have analyzed it rigorously proving scientifically beyond any doubt that it violates CoE.