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

[Omnibus]

@grunff,

?Nonsense, SMOTs do not in any way violate conservation of energy - if they did, it would be very simple to link up a few of them and have the ball go round indefinitely. Try it - it doesn't work.?

Nonsense is your statement. On the contrary SMOTs do violate conservation of energy even if a few of them are not linked up to have the ball go round indefinitely. This has to be understood once and for all so that discussions such as this can be put in the right perspective. Discussions such as this are only about some engineering aspects of applying the fact that conservation of energy can be violated (proven by SMOT). Nothing more. It is not true, as some here have incorrectly indicated, that in order to prove violation of conservation of energy a self-sustaining motor has to be constructed and demonstrated. 

That?s why this is the right place for such discussions.

Also, for a device to violate the principle of conservation of energy is only necessary to demonstrate that the energy obtained is more than the energy consumed. It is not at all mandatory to demonstrate a self-sustaining motor for the purposes of proving violation of conservation of energy. Demonstrating a self-sustaining motor is only an engineering achievement and not accomplishing such only proves that the particular constructor hasn?t been able to make use of the violation of conservation of energy. Not that such conservation isn?t real.

Unfortunately, so far, as Stefan points out, no scientific proof has been shown confirming that the devices presented in this thread produce more energy than they consume. If that?s the case (that is, if the devices in this thread don?t demonstrate more energy out than in) all these efforts are a waste of time with regard to the topic discussed and should be abandoned. Again, not that no self-sustaining device has been shown in this thread but in this thread no device has been shown conclusively to produce more energy than the energy spent for its running as it is shown to be the case for SMOT.

[dingbat]

I've heard this myth repeated over and over again in discussions on magnet motors. Magnets do not and cannot "run down" when used in a motor. Magnets do demagnetise over time, but you can't make it happen quicker by for instance opposing two magnets.

I think that there is reasonably credible evidence of certain configurations that relatively quickly demagnetize magnets.  For sure heating neos will damage them.



I have followed this "Mike" motor thing on several sites over the past week or so.  At this point I believe his video was faked.  If his video was not a fake, it is by far the most impressive device I have seen.

I don't believe that anybody has produced a self-runner to date.  There are numerous people implying that they have built one or more self-running devices, but they seem to become very evasive when you start asking specific questions about them. (questions that should be easy to answer if you actually had one.)  You get all kinds of reasons why self-runners aren't important, etc.

My translation of "self-runners aren't important" is: "I don't have one, and never have had one".

I don't find the Bedini video to be nearly as impressive as Mikes.  The Bedini video looks believable.  Mikes looks unbelievable.  That's why if it is for real it is the real deal.  Since Mike disappeared, I believe it was a fake that would soon be exposed.

I hope I'm wrong.

[grunff]

Nonsense is your statement. On the contrary SMOTs do violate conservation of energy even if a few of them are not linked up to have the ball go round indefinitely. This has to be understood once and for all so that discussions such as this can be put in the right perspective. Discussions such as this are only about some engineering aspects of applying the fact that conservation of energy can be violated (proven by SMOT). Nothing more. It is not true, as some here have incorrectly indicated, that in order to prove violation of conservation of energy a self-sustaining motor has to be constructed and demonstrated. 

Well, I know you're incorrect, but in the interest of science, let's investigate this further.

What data can you present to show that a SMOT violates conservation of energy?

[Dingus Mungus]

Wow, another SMOT thread...

Great... 

[Omnibus]

@grunff,

?Well, I know you're incorrect, but in the interest of science, let's investigate this further. What data can you present to show that a SMOT violates conservation of energy??

On the contrary, you are incorrect.

I repeat especially for you:

The best way to understand this is to look at omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif.

The gravitational potential energy spent is mgh1 while the gravitational potential energy lost is mg(h1 + h2), that is, greater than the gravitational potential energy spent which is a clear violation of the principle of conservation of energy. All this in a closed loop in the magnetic field which means that no magnetic potential energy has been spent or lost.