Deleted, due to no interest
.
I'm opening this thread again.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 22, 2007, 05:53:47 AM
I must agree, that Omnibus sometimes is using bad words,
but I also understand why he is doing it.
As most people just don?t realize, that the SMOT really works and
is overunity.
How often do we have to explain it again and again ????
Just because we are sceptics that really needs more than words and crappy videos as proof.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 22, 2007, 05:53:47 AM
There are several videos out there, that show without a doubt,
that the SMOT ball gains energy ba going through the ramp.
There is no point anymore in discussion.
The problem still is to get it used.
I haven't seen a single video that proves anything more than you are getting sligthly more output of the SMOT before returning the ball.
This gain is so small that any attempt to drain energy from the ball will prevent the possibility to return the ball.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 22, 2007, 05:53:47 AM
Nobody has yet build a longer SMOT ramp of e.g. 1 Meter long and
a bigger height difference, so the energy gain is enough to
loop the ball back to the entrance.
Let's hope someone takes their time and builds one.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 22, 2007, 05:53:47 AM
Only Greg Watson and Epitaxyhad been having looped SMOTs,
but as they did build it so small, in scale, the friction influence was
just too big all the time and the ball sticked after a few cycles to the
track, because it was too much accelerated, etc...
So where is this video then. I'd like to see it.
Then again, if the ball is getting magnetized, what is preventing a LARGE ball from getting magnetized?
Well, really nothing at all. The same rules apply at larger scales.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 22, 2007, 05:53:47 AM
The SMOT really needs a big setup with very precise mechanical
building and very precise control of the running ball, otherwise you will not get it to loop.
Perhaps it will loop but any attempt to drain energy will stop the ball.
So I question the energy output from a SMOT in a large scale setup.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 22, 2007, 05:53:47 AM
But please stop the flamewar and hammering onto Omnibus.
OK will do, as long as he behaves himself and perhaps present the looped SMOT he tells us he have built.
Otherwise he is just a liar and not to be thrusted. I know, hard words, but I don't like lies.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3245.msg50721.html#msg50721
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 22, 2007, 05:53:47 AM
The SMOT principle works.
If you say so. I'll wait for the proof. Perhaps some day in the far far future..... ;)
Quote
This gain is so small that any attemt to drain energy from the ball will prevent the posibillity to return the ball.
There is no gain in SMOT, only one person has shown a continuosly running SMOT and thats Finsrud, but even thats doubtful because he won't let anybody near it for a detailed inspection.
only one person that I've seen claims to have got the ball to run 3 times around a SMOT ramp before it comes to rest, so in the end if there were any gain it was lost to the ball and friction.
Quote from: RunningBare on September 23, 2007, 08:09:32 AM
Quote
This gain is so small that any attemt to drain energy from the ball will prevent the posibillity to return the ball.
There is no gain in SMOT, only one person has shown a continuosly running SMOT and thats Finsrud, but even thats doubtful because he won't let anybody near it for a detailed inspection.
only one person that I've seen claims to have got the ball to run 3 times around a SMOT ramp before it comes to rest, so in the end if there were any gain it was lost to the ball and friction.
Enough with this nonsense. SMOT produces excess energy (energy from nothing) without doubt as definitively proven in analyses such as this: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2733.30.html#msg40090. What remains now is to succeed in the engineering effort (a really difficult engineering task) to put this violation of CoE to practical use.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 23, 2007, 08:33:03 AM
SMOT produces excess energy (energy from nothing) without doubt as definitively proven in analyses such as this: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2733.30.html#msg40090. What remains now is to succeed in the engineering effort (a really difficult engineering task) to put this violation of CoE to practical use.
With CoE it's clear for me, CoE can be violated. But you know WHY smot give energy gain ? If you know why then you could know how to optimize this gain.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 23, 2007, 08:33:03 AM
What measurements? What I?m presenting is a conclusive theoretical analysis. Anyone can measure heights h1, h2 and m.
a theoretical analysis is not a proof
but if you do a loop with the SMOT ...
for a month ... then a year ... and so on .... (infinite move ? )
so we can read this analysis
It is your own point of view that says if it's overunity or not. In a 4 dimensional view, yes, because the ball is traveling with no apparent input of energy, thus the distance it travels being a excess of the created energy. And some don't think of this, time bubbles. If you were to seperate the space time of the operational smot with our space time, there would be a disconnect of you placing the ball on the track. Thus if you were to loop the space time, which is theoreticaly possible, you would create a perpetual motion machine in a differen't "time bubble". IF string theory is right, then you could go to a higher dimension and and create a bridge between the looping space time. Giving you abilities to harvest the excess energy through the bridge. Like I said, this is your point of view, mine requires a high level of abstraction. Some people have a hard time wrapping their brains around my point of view, so they think in a more 3d concrete manner. Are universe is a non-linear place of virtual particles popping in and out of existance.
Quote from: Nostradamus2 on September 23, 2007, 11:48:32 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on September 23, 2007, 08:33:03 AM
SMOT produces excess energy (energy from nothing) without doubt as definitively proven in analyses such as this: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2733.30.html#msg40090. What remains now is to succeed in the engineering effort (a really difficult engineering task) to put this violation of CoE to practical use.
With CoE it's clear for me, CoE can be violated. But you know WHY smot give energy gain ? If you know why then you could know how to optimize this gain.
The excess energy in devices such as SMOT is produced only due to their proper construction. Said excess energy has no source, it is produced out of nothing. What is a proper construction, you would ask. Proper construction converts the excess energy into a form which can be utilized as input energy. Usually, the kind of excess energy produced isn't suitable to be used as input energy (part of it is lost as heat, kinetic energy isn't in a suitable form etc.) Also, optimization of the SMOT, that is, obtaining of a maximum possible amount of excess energy from a given construction isn't the easiest task. One needs a really well constructed and manufactured micromechanical device which would allow minute 3D movements of the magnets and the ramp. I haven't seen so far anything more than home-made devices hastily put together by enthusiasts. Proper scientific experimentation needs much more and those of the readers who have or are working towards their PhD's in some experimental science know what I mean. Amateurishness and enthusiasm work up to a point. Serious advances in science usually happen only through very serious professional approach. Because violation of CoE won't bring you any advance in Academia one can hardly find nowadays anybody professionally working in science to deal with this important problem. Most of it is left in the hands of amateurs enthusiasts and if a professionl would pop up here and there in these discussion is to just spew some incoherent, superficial blabber presenting it as words of skepticism. That's a shame but that the sorry state of affairs when the real innovations are on the horizon. This has always been the case. And when it happens and becomes common knowledge those same naysayers will shamelessly insist that they have always known it's true.
Quote from: tagor on September 23, 2007, 01:07:51 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on September 23, 2007, 08:33:03 AM
What measurements? What I?m presenting is a conclusive theoretical analysis. Anyone can measure heights h1, h2 and m.
a theoretical analysis is not a proof
but if you do a loop with the SMOT ...
for a month ... then a year ... and so on .... (infinite move ? )
so we can read this analysis
Not so. This is the understanding of someone whose knowledge of how Science works and what scientific proof is, is at most marginal.
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on September 23, 2007, 01:30:32 PM
It is your own point of view that says if it's overunity or not. In a 4 dimensional view, yes, because the ball is traveling with no apparent input of energy, thus the distance it travels being a excess of the created energy. And some don't think of this, time bubbles. If you were to seperate the space time of the operational smot with our space time, there would be a disconnect of you placing the ball on the track. Thus if you were to loop the space time, which is theoreticaly possible, you would create a perpetual motion machine in a differen't "time bubble". IF string theory is right, then you could go to a higher dimension and and create a bridge between the looping space time. Giving you abilities to harvest the excess energy through the bridge. Like I said, this is your point of view, mine requires a high level of abstraction. Some people have a hard time wrapping their brains around my point of view, so they think in a more 3d concrete manner. Are universe is a non-linear place of virtual particles popping in and out of existance.
Don't even bother discussing this. You are so confused that any disussion with you would be nothing but waste of time.
Omnibus, I agree 100% the proper technology development needs knowledge base and proper development tools (most often very expensive). It's not task for one or few home amateurs. I can't say it's impossible but very very hard.
It's clear, to close loop system must produce more energy than all losses together. Have you any theory how excess energy is gained ? Don't you think it's the same mechanism of time-variant transactions of Steorn technology ?
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on September 23, 2007, 01:30:32 PM
It is your own point of view that says if it's overunity or not. In a 4 dimensional view, yes, because the ball is traveling with no apparent input of energy, thus the distance it travels being a excess of the created energy. And some don't think of this, time bubbles. If you were to seperate the space time of the operational smot with our space time, there would be a disconnect of you placing the ball on the track. Thus if you were to loop the space time, which is theoreticaly possible, you would create a perpetual motion machine in a differen't "time bubble". IF string theory is right, then you could go to a higher dimension and and create a bridge between the looping space time. Giving you abilities to harvest the excess energy through the bridge. Like I said, this is your point of view, mine requires a high level of abstraction. Some people have a hard time wrapping their brains around my point of view, so they think in a more 3d concrete manner. Are universe is a non-linear place of virtual particles popping in and out of existance.
Free energy is NOT coming from black holes, dark matter, fourth dimension, from outer space, wrapped time, non-linear space, earth magnetic field, nor from Einstein's asshole. You think so just because you don't know physics. What is CoE and from where it is coming.
Quote from: Nostradamus2 on September 23, 2007, 03:47:13 PM
Omnibus, I agree 100% the proper technology development needs knowledge base and proper development tools (most often very expensive). It's not task for one or few home amateurs. I can't say it's impossible but very very hard.
It's clear, to close loop system must produce more energy than all losses together. Have you any theory how excess energy is gained ? Don't you think it's the same mechanism of time-variant transactions of Steorn technology ?
One way of producing excess energy is through proper superposition of two conservative fields. The resultant field, as a result of this proper superposition, is non-conservative. Such is the resultant field in the SMOT or Finsrud. Another way is to have a conservative field change from within the system while traversing the closed loop. This is what devices such as those of Torbay or Steorn are based on. So far Steorn's is one of the most interesting as a practical application of this principle. Unfortunately, so far only SMOT has been demonstrated in a way conclusively proving production of energy from nothing.
Just curious
Has anyone been able to bring the ball back to the origional starting point? Not acutally geting past the sticky point but at least able to bring the ball back to its origional starting point. And if so would this be considered "closing the loop"?
Omnibus told us he had built a closed loop SMOT.
We asked many times to see the video.
The video never came along.
It was all a lie from Omnibus to try and convince us it was possible to close the loop.
Quote from: Nostradamus2 on September 23, 2007, 03:51:32 PM
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on September 23, 2007, 01:30:32 PM
It is your own point of view that says if it's overunity or not. In a 4 dimensional view, yes, because the ball is traveling with no apparent input of energy, thus the distance it travels being a excess of the created energy. And some don't think of this, time bubbles. If you were to seperate the space time of the operational smot with our space time, there would be a disconnect of you placing the ball on the track. Thus if you were to loop the space time, which is theoreticaly possible, you would create a perpetual motion machine in a differen't "time bubble". IF string theory is right, then you could go to a higher dimension and and create a bridge between the looping space time. Giving you abilities to harvest the excess energy through the bridge. Like I said, this is your point of view, mine requires a high level of abstraction. Some people have a hard time wrapping their brains around my point of view, so they think in a more 3d concrete manner. Are universe is a non-linear place of virtual particles popping in and out of existance.
Free energy is NOT coming from black holes, dark matter, fourth dimension, from outer space, wrapped time, non-linear space, earth magnetic field, nor from Einstein's asshole. You think so just because you don't know physics. What is CoE and from where it is coming.
Sorry you don't read about anything new. You can watch this to update your understanding of discovery.....
http://www.ponderabout.com/archives/377/11th-dimension-parallel-universes/ (http://www.ponderabout.com/archives/377/11th-dimension-parallel-universes/)
Quote from: Ergo on September 28, 2007, 01:30:02 AM
Omnibus told us he had built a closed loop SMOT.
We asked many times to see the video.
The video never came along.
It was all a lie from Omnibus to try and convince us it was possible to close the loop.
Listen, you moron, don't you ever dare to attack me, idiot. You are incompetent and your place isn't here to abuse people who are really interested and competent to discuss research in this important area. Enough is enough. If you don't want to hear more deserved qualifications about yourself, go away.
Here's the closed loop SMOT:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847
I think you need to look up the definition of "closed loop"
Quote from: Omnibus on September 28, 2007, 04:18:58 AM
Listen, you moron, don't you ever dare to attack me, idiot. You are incompetent and your place isn't here to abuse people who are really interested and competent to discuss research in this important area. Enough is enough. If you don't want to hear more deserved qualifications about yourself, go away.
Here's the closed loop SMOT:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847
That ain't for sure a closed loop.
So far I'm right and you are wrong.
And I'll continue this standpoint until proven wrong.
I will only resign when I see a real working closed loop SMOT.
Listen, you MORON , ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
You are the most retarded idiot I?ve ever seen,
You are so STUPID that you think that?s a closed loop .
RETARD.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 28, 2007, 04:18:58 AM
Listen, you moron, don't you ever dare to attack me, idiot. You are incompetent and your place isn't here to abuse people who are really interested and competent to discuss research in this important area. Enough is enough. If you don't want to hear more deserved qualifications about yourself, go away.
Here's the closed loop SMOT:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847
When the ball escapes the sticky spot it does so with the help of gravity and then is left in a position lower than it started. If you use a smaller ball then gravity will likely not be enough to get past the sticky spot and escape because the magnet hold back force is too strong for the smaller ball.
So you can see that all this has to be finely tuned but in the end there is no net gain. If the ball remained unstuck and higher than its starting point then there would be no dispute about the net gain. If it kept running like the finsrud device there'd be not debate either.
My pendulum that swings higher than its dropped spot does have a net gain but there is nothing to take to be bank either. You can see that here....http://student.ccbmd.edu/~norman/magwork.html
Norman
@All,
As seen in http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847 the ball travels along a closed A-B-C-A loop. The loop A-B-C-A is a closed loop. Anyone who would dare to deny this obviousl fact will read a deserved qualification about himself.
This is a warning!
RAFLMAO
>This is a warning!
:P
lol.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 28, 2007, 09:47:38 AM
@All,
As seen in http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847 the ball travels along a closed A-B-C-A loop. The loop A-B-C-A is a closed loop. Anyone who would dare to deny this obviousl fact will read a deserved qualification about himself.
This is a warning!
No, the ball very obviously stops at "A" after falling from "C" where it stays until the guy lifts it back to "B". This hardly constitutes "closed loop operation, if the guy goes for a piss the ball stays at "A" until he comes back....
Quote from: crazyman on September 28, 2007, 10:05:39 AM
RAFLMAO
>This is a warning!
Stephan Hartman! This IDIOT Omnibus is threatening me!
Could you please ban this MORON.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 28, 2007, 09:47:38 AM
@All,
As seen in http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847 the ball travels along a closed A-B-C-A loop. The loop A-B-C-A is a closed loop. Anyone who would dare to deny this obviousl fact will read a deserved qualification about himself.
This is a warning!
That was it. I warned you.
You are a complrete, obvious idiot. The loop A-B-C-A is a closed loop, you moron. Don't reply or you'll hear more of these deserved qualifications you're calling for.
Quote from: acp on September 28, 2007, 10:11:16 AM
No, the ball very obviously stops at "A" after falling from "C" where it stays until the guy lifts it back to "B". This hardly constitutes "closed loop operation, if the guy goes for a piss the ball stays at "A" until he comes back....
No, the ball obviously travels along the closed A-B-C-A loop, you moron. You're an obvious moron.
No, the only way the ball travels from "A" to "B" is by someone lifting it with their fingers.
By the way, why don't you calm down. I don't recall being rude to you. Just because you're on an internet forum doesn't mean you have to stop being a civilised human being. Use a bit of respect.
The qualification is that if the track extended level past point ?C?
The ball would stop dead in its tracks. It continues past point ?C?
Because it follows the magnet Straight DOWN
not having to leave the magnets grip (which the magnet still has).
It falls off the BOTTOM of the magnet because of GRAVITY.
so there !
burk, burk, burk, cluck , cluck ,cluck,
Quote from: acp on September 28, 2007, 10:21:39 AM
No, the only way the ball travels from "A" to "B" is by someone lifting it with their fingers.
By the way, why don't you calm down. I don't recall being rude to you. Just because you're on an internet forum doesn't mean you have to stop being a civilised human being. Use a bit of respect.
No respect for morons such as you who deny obvious facts. The ball obviously travels along the closed loop A-B-C-A. Don't reply otherwise or you'll continue to read deserved qualifications about you which you won't like.
Quote from: crazyman on September 28, 2007, 10:23:19 AM
The qualification is that if the track extended level past point ?C?
The ball would stop dead in its tracks. It continues past point ?C?
Because it follows the magnet Straight DOWN
not having to leave the magnets grip (which the magnet still has).
It falls off the BOTTOM of the magnet because of GRAVITY.
so there !
burk, burk, burk, cluck , cluck ,cluck,
Stop spewing crap, you moron. The ball most obviously travels along a closed loop--the loop A-B-C-A.
Tell me then Omnibus, maybe I'm missing something here. How does the ball get from "A" to "B" in the video? Magnetic attraction? Gravity?
Quote from: acp on September 28, 2007, 10:28:13 AM
Tell me then Omnibus, maybe I'm missing something here. How does the ball get from "A" to "B" in the video? Magnetic attraction? Gravity?
This question is beside the point. The undeniable fact is that the ball ... the ball ... tha ball ... travels along the closed A-B-C-A loop. Stop denying this obvious fact.
Ah I see now, I obviously am a moron. Yes the ball does indeed travel along the closed loop A-B-C-A.
At least until the guy goes for a cup of coffee or goes for a piss or goes to sleep etc.....
Edit.
Oh I'm confused again
QuoteThe undeniable fact is that the ball ... the ball ... tha ball ... travels along the closed A-B-C-A loop
Are there 3 balls? I only saw one, but maybe I could have missed the other two.
Doh! Hahahahahaha,
Omnibus I take it back, you?re a GENIUS
nice catch acp.
LOL.
Quote from: acp on September 28, 2007, 10:43:37 AM
Ah I see now, I obviously am a moron. Yes the ball does indeed travel along the closed loop A-B-C-A.
At least until the guy goes for a cup of coffee or goes for a piss or goes to sleep etc.....
Edit.
Oh I'm confused again QuoteThe undeniable fact is that the ball ... the ball ... tha ball ... travels along the closed A-B-C-A loop
Are there 3 balls? I only saw one, but maybe I could have missed the other two.
The ball.....the ball....tha ball, is imparted energy by a morons hand ;D
Dear Omnibus, with no disrespect I would like to mention that the problem here seems to be that there are two substantially different definitions of "closed loop" being used in this thread.
Your definition of a closed loop -- and it would be of great help if you actually wrote out a clear definition of what that is yourself -- from my view is that the ball need only return close to its starting point. However, this only being close to point "A" then requires a critical amount of work by the hands and fingers of the operator to return the ball to point "A" that it may again travel your " closed loop". So it seems the operator's efforts are part of your system to keep the ball moving. Not a problem if this is your definition. You could add a rocket engine or a chipmunk pushing the ball with his nose if it were part of your definition.
On the other hand, others in this thread -- including myself -- define a closed loop within a SMOT as one that moves the ball through all its steps automatically with NO assistance or added energy (such as a human hand) from outside. Here, the ball has to return to its exact starting point on its own that it may continue the up hill section again. So basically this definition of a closed loop would operate on its own indefinitely.
j
Conclusion: ;D
1) Omnibus is obviously the "moron" here. Nobody else uses that word that much. 8)
2) No free energy from smots as long as you have to use external power to return the ball. ???
3) I question Ominus being a so called "physics professor". He does not act like a well educated person. ::)
4) His equations does not compute. It takes a self running loop capable of producing excess energy to violate CoE. >:(
5) Please calm down Omnibus and stop being so rude to people. Explain the SMOT in detail instead.
Don't leave out the how the ball will get returned without the use of external energy, e.g hand power. :D
Please read:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2733.msg40743.html#msg40743
Omnibus refuses to debate his theory when facing a real academical and competent person. Aka Dingus Mungus.
Trust me, you don't want to know! , but if you insist, here is the
long winded version (http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13991&page=79#Item_40) ;)
Quote from: Honk on September 28, 2007, 01:48:59 PM
5) Please calm down Omnibus and stop being so rude to people. Explain the SMOT in detail instead.
Don't leave out the how the ball will get returned without the use of external energy, e.g hand power. :D
Quote from: acp on September 28, 2007, 10:43:37 AM
Ah I see now, I obviously am a moron. Yes the ball does indeed travel along the closed loop A-B-C-A.
At least until the guy goes for a cup of coffee or goes for a piss or goes to sleep etc.....
Edit.
Oh I'm confused again QuoteThe undeniable fact is that the ball ... the ball ... tha ball ... travels along the closed A-B-C-A loop
Are there 3 balls? I only saw one, but maybe I could have missed the other two.
You are confused. Restrain from posting before you understand the issue.
Quote from: crazyman on September 28, 2007, 11:12:21 AM
Doh! Hahahahahaha,
Omnibus I take it back, you?re a GENIUS
nice catch acp.
LOL.
Quote from: acp on September 28, 2007, 10:43:37 AM
Ah I see now, I obviously am a moron. Yes the ball does indeed travel along the closed loop A-B-C-A.
At least until the guy goes for a cup of coffee or goes for a piss or goes to sleep etc.....
Edit.
Oh I'm confused again QuoteThe undeniable fact is that the ball ... the ball ... tha ball ... travels along the closed A-B-C-A loop
Are there 3 balls? I only saw one, but maybe I could have missed the other two.
Hey, moron, stop cluttering the thread with your impudent nonsense.
Quote from: RunningBare on September 28, 2007, 01:25:07 PM
The ball.....the ball....tha ball, is imparted energy by a morons hand ;D
You're a complete idiot. Don't continue reconfirming this fact by posting nonsense.
Quote from: JamesThomas on September 28, 2007, 01:42:32 PM
Dear Omnibus, with no disrespect I would like to mention that the problem here seems to be that there are two substantially different definitions of "closed loop" being used in this thread.
Your definition of a closed loop -- and it would be of great help if you actually wrote out a clear definition of what that is yourself -- from my view is that the ball need only return close to its starting point. However, this only being close to point "A" then requires a critical amount of work by the hands and fingers of the operator to return the ball to point "A" that it may again travel your " closed loop". So it seems the operator's efforts are part of your system to keep the ball moving. Not a problem if this is your definition. You could add a rocket engine or a chipmunk pushing the ball with his nose if it were part of your definition.
On the other hand, others in this thread -- including myself -- define a closed loop within a SMOT as one that moves the ball through all its steps automatically with NO assistance or added energy (such as a human hand) from outside. Here, the ball has to return to its exact starting point on its own that it may continue the up hill section again. So basically this definition of a closed loop would operate on its own indefinitely.
j
Don't try to confuse the issue. The loop A-B-C-A which the ball travels along is a closed loop. Period. End of story.
Quote from: Honk on September 28, 2007, 01:48:59 PM
Conclusion: ;D
1) Omnibus is obviously the "moron" here. Nobody else uses that word that much. 8)
2) No free energy from smots as long as you have to use external power to return the ball. ???
3) I question Ominus being a so called "physics professor". He does not act like a well educated person. ::)
4) His equations does not compute. It takes a self running loop capable of producing excess energy to violate CoE. >:(
5) Please calm down Omnibus and stop being so rude to people. Explain the SMOT in detail instead.
Don't leave out the how the ball will get returned without the use of external energy, e.g hand power. :D
Please read:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2733.msg40743.html#msg40743
Omnibus refuses to debate his theory when facing a real academical and competent person. Aka Dingus Mungus.
Hey, idiot, stop spamming the thread, you moron.
Quote from: RunningBare on September 28, 2007, 02:21:40 PM
Trust me, you don't want to know! , but if you insist, here is the long winded version (http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13991&page=79#Item_40) ;)
Quote from: Honk on September 28, 2007, 01:48:59 PM
5) Please calm down Omnibus and stop being so rude to people. Explain the SMOT in detail instead.
Don't leave out the how the ball will get returned without the use of external energy, e.g hand power. :D
Hey, retard,, this is not a place to demonstrate how stupid you are. Go away.
Only one retard around here, he cannot even see his own hand lifting the ball to complete the loop :-*
Quote from: Omnibus on September 28, 2007, 02:33:14 PM
Hey, retard,, this is not a place to demonstrate how stupid you are. Go away.
@All,
So far SMOT is the only device which demonstrates in a most categorical way that CoE can be violated. Production of excess energy, that is, energy out of nothing is proven beyond any doubt in a rigorous scientific manner. What remains is to implement this finding in a simple practical device (SMOT can also be practical, although in a less convenient way because it produces excess energy discontinuously). There are several promising designs, most notably that of Steorn, which are expected to demonstrate continuous production of excess energy. Whether or not such devices will be created (which is a purely engineering effort, very difficult at that) will by no means affect the main firmly established conclusion, namely, that CoE can be violated which, as said, is proven beyond doubt by the SMOT.
Quote from: RunningBare on September 28, 2007, 02:39:02 PM
Only one retard around here, he cannot even see his own hand lifting the ball to complete the loop :-*
Quote from: Omnibus on September 28, 2007, 02:33:14 PM
Hey, retard,, this is not a place to demonstrate how stupid you are. Go away.
Hey, retard, stop spamming the thread, you moron.
Okay, Omnibus,
There are just people, who are "blind", "close minded" or "too stupid"
to see with all the videos which have been posted,
that the SMOT just works and is overunity.
I guess I should close this thread now.
It makes no more sense to discuss this further.
Some day someone will again show a looped SMOT
like Greg Watson or Epitaxy have already done.
Regards, Stefan.