Is this the first selfrunning overunity motor w/o batteries ? Mike?s motor

[Omnibus]

@CTG Labs,

The reality of overunity (violation of the principle of conservation of energy) has been proven beyond doubt in the case of SMOT (cf. analysis of http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847 schematically shown in http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif).

Practical application of the fact that overunity is real is only an engineering problem. Not an easy one, at that. Some who are attempting to put it in practice may succeed others may not succeed. The fact that there will be researchers who will not succeed in clothing the phenomenon of overunity in a practical engineering device doesn?t overturn the reality of overunity.

To prove that a device violates the principle of conservation of energy is only necessary to show that the output energy is more than the input. It is not at all necessary to show that it can run itself, as appears to be your understanding. You say your device doesn?t run itself (yet). However, does it produce more energy than the energy consumed? If so, can you show data (scope shots etc.) which can demonstrate that?

[corona]

It is quite difficult to prove conclusively that something is overunity on paper by measureing all inputs and outputs, because how do we measure the exact amount of energy that is going into the friction of the system, or quantify all possible energy sources involved (radio waves being picked up by windings?) and even if you do get everything and it tallies up, it's going to be hard to present these findings to the world, as everyone's more than likely to say you must have made a mistake somewhere.

On the other hand if you've got something that runs itself, it is clearly obvious to any untrained eye that you have something special, and it is easy to demonstrate what you have. This is why I believe it is crucial to get something that is a clearly obvious 'overunity' type device which can run in a closed loop.

Please don't start posting other so called overunity devices, the smot is not proven overunity, as you haven't measured all energy in and out (remember to include all the energy imparted by your hand placing the ball in the smot, and the energy used to hold the ball still initially before letting it go, not just the basic potential energy based on it's height and gravity). btw that gif doens't appear to work, I just get a fortunecity logo.
If anything in putting out more energy than is going in, it has to be possible to make it run itself, ie if you are getting 101% out you should be able to tap off the extra 1% and use the 100% to keep it running.

[Omnibus]

?It is quite difficult to prove conclusively that something is overunity on paper by measureing all inputs and outputs, because how do we measure the exact amount of energy that is going into the friction of the system, or quantify all possible energy sources involved (radio waves being picked up by windings?) and even if you do get everything and it tallies up, it's going to be hard to present these findings to the world, as everyone's more than likely to say you must have made a mistake somewhere.?

This is incorrect. There is science and it applies the scientific method. If you want to disregard the scientific method, that?s another story.

In the case of the discussed SMOT, as shown in the cited links, the inputs and outputs are understood very well even if the SMOT is not in a closed loop and is not self-running. SMOT is an overunity device beyond any doubt.

That SMOT is violating beyond doubt the principle of conservation of energy is easier to demonstrate than to try to manufacture a working self-sustaining device for that purpose. Manufacturing of self-sustaining device meets with enormous purely engineering (not scientific) problems and inability to make one is in no way a proof that the principle of conservation of energy isn?t violated. It only proves that the concrete researcher is unable to practically construct a self-sustaining device.

Of course, it won?t hurt to show a self-sustaining device for the purposes of proving violation of the principle of conservation of energy. However, as already said, it is not mandatory.

Again, SMOT is proven beyond any doubt that is an overunity device and all of its input and output energies are very well understood.

[hydrocontrol]

The reality of overunity (violation of the principle of conservation of energy) has been proven beyond doubt .....

This maybe true however nothing beats having a mechanical device running WITHOUT a battery and powering a couple of LED's (if possible) at the same time. The average layperson is more impressed with this then with a battery attached even if the battery is being charged. Too many 'slight of hand' demonstrations has lead to a 'souring' of the perception of even units that appear to be producing anything close to overunity. The people performing 'slight of hand' demonstrations is long and growing longer each day. Tilley being one at the top of the list but there are a lot of others which add to the 'scam' labeling of possible working units...  Sigh.. An now we have Mr. Bedini casting shadow on Mike's video by stating that something is 'strange' if you step though it frame by frame without actually coming out stating what is the concern and where in the video the concern is located... On top of that we have claims of him running a motor with just a capacitor months ago yet only after Mike's video is shown does this new video come to light.. Seems this would have been a 'important' milestone and should have been pushed a little sooner.   I wonder if the cavemen fought as much over who discovered fire.
Now on the other hand people are going to argue about how much energy was put into the magnets and can you get that energy out without depleteing the magnets. Still I am working on my replication with the hope of having a novelty sitting one my desk spinning away WITHOUT a battery.. 

[Hoppy]

We should not forget that the magnets used in the WM are made with energy taken from an external source. Does anyone know how much electrical energy is required to produce lets say a ceramic grade 8 magnet? With this information, we could then determine for how long the WM would need to continuously run before the true accumulative energy produced by the WM generator plus energy consumed by the motor equals the energy used to create the magnets. If this time was exceeded then I'm happy to declare it OU. This issue has been raised before but somewhat dismissed in my opinion by saying that the magnets will not loose strength. However, this will only be proved or disproved by running the WM for a long enough period of time.