Another Smot Idea w/Pic

[shruggedatlas]

Why does the loop have to be closed? If enough energy was generated in a straight line, closing the loop shouldn't be that big of an issue.

If enough energy was generated in a straight line, why not simply close the loop?  Sorry, but your logic does not work.  If you cannot close the loop, that means the overall system is losing energy, not creating it.

Not necessarily. The excess energy in SMOT isn't obtained in a form that could easily be fed into the input. I told you this a number of times. The lack of self-sustaining SMOT isn't an argument against the fact that SMOT violates CoE. The only criterion for CoE violation is to have the ball lose more energy than the energy imparted to it and that's exactly what happens.

Yes, indeed, you have pointed this out many times.  However, this discussion is not about the violation of CoE. The discussion is about extracting useful energy, which is currently not possible with the SMOT.

[Omnibus]

Why does the loop have to be closed? If enough energy was generated in a straight line, closing the loop shouldn't be that big of an issue.

If enough energy was generated in a straight line, why not simply close the loop?  Sorry, but your logic does not work.  If you cannot close the loop, that means the overall system is losing energy, not creating it.

Not necessarily. The excess energy in SMOT isn't obtained in a form that could easily be fed into the input. I told you this a number of times. The lack of self-sustaining SMOT isn't an argument against the fact that SMOT violates CoE. The only criterion for CoE violation is to have the ball lose more energy than the energy imparted to it and that's exactly what happens.

Yes, indeed, you have pointed this out many times.  However, this discussion is not about the violation of CoE. The discussion is about extracting useful energy, which is currently not possible with the SMOT.

Depends what you mean by useful energy. If useful energy for you is only such energy which would make SMOT self-sustaining then having such kind of energy hasn't been achieved. Harnessing that kind of energy is a very difficult engineering problem. Excess energy, however, is produced in forms other than your above definition of  being useful and it may be harnessed for purposes other than making  SMOT self-sustaining. Why limit the usage of energy given to you as a gift, coming out of no energy source, to only one application--the self-sustaining run of SMOT? Isn't energy used for other purposes too?

[shruggedatlas]

Depends what you mean by useful energy. If useful energy for you is only such energy which would make SMOT self-sustaining then having such kind of energy hasn't been achieved. Harnessing that kind of energy is a very difficult engineering problem. Excess energy, however, is produced in forms other than your above definition of  being useful and it may be harnessed for purposes other than making  SMOT self-sustaining. Why limit the usage of energy given to you as a gift, coming out of no energy source, to only one application--the self-sustaining run of SMOT? Isn't energy used for other purposes too?

You are dancing on a head of a pin here.  Energy is energy.  If it were possible to harness the energy of the SMOT for other purposes, and the end result was more energy out than in, then it would be possible to make the thing self-sustaining.  However, it is currently impossible to harness any energy out of the SMOT whatsoever under any kind of load, without the entire device being effectively underunity. 

If you have an actual (not purely mathematical) example of discontinuous energy harnessing from a SMOT, where the end result is that the SMOT generates more energy than what is used to manually return the ball to the starting point, then I am sure we would all like to see this marvellous overunity device.

[Omnibus]

Depends what you mean by useful energy. If useful energy for you is only such energy which would make SMOT self-sustaining then having such kind of energy hasn't been achieved. Harnessing that kind of energy is a very difficult engineering problem. Excess energy, however, is produced in forms other than your above definition of  being useful and it may be harnessed for purposes other than making  SMOT self-sustaining. Why limit the usage of energy given to you as a gift, coming out of no energy source, to only one application--the self-sustaining run of SMOT? Isn't energy used for other purposes too?

You are dancing on a head of a pin here.  Energy is energy.  If it were possible to harness the energy of the SMOT for other purposes, and the end result was more energy out than in, then it would be possible to make the thing self-sustaining.  However, it is currently impossible to harness any energy out of the SMOT whatsoever under any kind of load, without the entire device being effectively underunity. 

If you have an actual (not purely mathematical) example of discontinuous energy harnessing from a SMOT, where the end result is that the SMOT generates more energy than what is used to manually return the ball to the starting point, then I am sure we would all like to see this marvellous overunity device.

No, that's not true. Lack of engineering application of a scientific effect can never be a proof that the scientific effect isn't real. There won't be science if this were the case.

As for mathematics used, that mathematics is only a tool describing real physical quantities. Physics is the important realm here, not mathematics. It is physics that concludes that the ball at a certain point possesses more energy which stands to be transformed into other energies than the energy that was imparted to it. Such discrepancy between said energies is nothing else but violation of CoE. That is physics, not mathematics. because the amounts of energy we're talking about are real quantities of energy not fictitious, abstract mathematical constructs.

[shruggedatlas]

No, that's not true. Lack of engineering application of a scientific effect can never be a proof that the scientific effect isn't real. There won't be science if this were the case.

That is true, but similarly, controversial views like yours, with zero empirical evidence of overunity, inevitably end up marginalized.  If you want to get anywhere, at least set up a SMOT that discontinuously produces more energy than it consumes.  And by that, I mean that it allows energy to be harnessed from it, and that amount of energy is greater than the energy required to constantly return the ball to the starting spot.  But wait, if that were possible, then you could make it self sustain.  See where I am getting at?